The DWMP blog – Episode 19. Getting the message across

This is the latest in a series of blogs discussing the development of Drainage and Wastewater Management Plans (DWMPs). If you haven’t already seen the earlier episodes in this series, they are all here (https://tinyurl.com/MartinOsborneArticles) I suggest that you start from Episode 1 (https://tinyurl.com/DWMP-blog).

In this episode I consider how we should report the results of DWMPs. It is early days to comment on this, as only initial results have so far been reported, with the main reports due in a few months. So, I am sticking my neck out and commenting on things that haven’t happened yet. I will however set out what I think are some good ideas for reporting DWMPs.

Audience

The first idea is that the reporting should be attuned to the audience that you are addressing. There is a wide range of audiences for DWMPs from individual worst served customers to Ofwat economists and everyone in between. A single presentation of the results is not going to work. The reporting will need to be in multiple versions to suit those different audiences. In all cases keep it simple to focus on the information that is relevant to them.

One version of the truth

The different versions of reporting all need to be based on the same underlying information on system performance, proposed actions, costs and benefits. This information should be made available to all within the company, all stakeholders and the general public.

Meaningful results

Some companies have already presented results of the Risk Based Catchment Screening (RBCS) and Baseline Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (BRAVA).

The results of the RBCS simply show that all except the smallest rural catchments needs a DWMP developing. But we already knew that years ago and were already working towards that with drainage area plans. The RBCS adds little to the understanding of catchment planners and nothing to the understanding of customers. So why are we doing it and presenting the results? The half-hearted way in which some companies are presenting these results indicate that they appreciate this issue.

The results of the BRAVA vary between companies. Some use it to just build on the RBCS to say whether the catchment is to be investigated or not. Others show level of concern as high, medium or low against a range of performance measures. This is presented at catchment level and so is meaningless to customers. The fact that her town is rated as of low concern for internal flooding means nothing to Mrs Smith of 4 Brookside Close, who has been flooded three times in the last twenty years. It is either a slap in the face that her problem is going to be ignored or meaningless because her problem is going to be investigated anyway. Again, why are we doing it and presenting the results?

The RBCS and BRAVA results did possibly have a purpose in showing that the work to develop the plans was underway, but once the results of the Option Development and Assessment (ODA) stage are available then the earlier results are not needed and should be removed to simplify the message.

Geographic resolution

The results to date have been presented geographically but generally only down to the resolution of a catchment. This is too high level.

Customers will want to see results that are local to them. But how do we do that? There has been lots of discussion on the best way to represent more local results; as kilometre grid squares, as grid hexagons or as postcodes. I am a great fan of using postcodes and census areas as they are based on community structures rather than the arbitrary national gid. They therefore mean more to the communities.

Conversely giving results for individual manholes is meaningless for anyone except the catchment planner who is developing options so don’t present these results. Giving results for individual properties is also not sensible as we do not know the results to sufficient accuracy and we risk distressing individual customers.

Be brave

Water companies are currently facing a lot of criticism over their performance and some are responding by avoiding discussing it. There seems to be an attitude in some companies’ reporting of: “don’t mention the storm overflows”. This is a self-defeating strategy. If we play down the significance of legacy storm overflows then we cannot justify the large sums of money that will be required to improve them. We should be honest about the operation and failings of the current systems and look to the future rather than ignore the past and present. One company even played down the issues of combined sewers by stating. “Under heavy storm conditions, rainfall can enter the sewerage systems and significantly increase the flow in the system.” But failed to mention that this would happen at least every week in anything more than light drizzle.

Make words count

Most of the information can be presented geographically as maps, or ideally as smart maps that allow zooming in and out and toggling of different sets of information. The words that accompany the maps should not repeat the information that is on them. They should focus on the why of the story and lead people into the maps to explore the what.

Demonstrate value for money

DWMPs will potentially produce very large planned expenditure. This needs to be justified based on the benefit that it will bring. Every step of the reporting should demonstrate the value for money of the proposed action. Failing to demonstrate the benefit is the potential Achilles heel of presenting the DWMPs.

How will it look

I will revisit these thoughts once the draft DWMPs are published. I will not reference any individual companies but will comments on what I think is good and bad practice is producing understandable and robust reporting of plans.