WatefCon2015_submission_62

Water Efficiency Conference 2015
Water Sector Service Innovation: what, where
and who?
Sarah Ward1*, Steve Brown2, Aaron Burton3, Kemi Adeyeye4, Noel
Mannion5, Siraj Tahir6, Craig Gordon7, George Chen8
1Centre for Water Systems, University of Exeter
2Centre for Environmental Strategy, University of Surrey
3Amec Foster Wheeler
4University of Brighton/WATEF
5Mace Group
6UCL
7Oxford Innovation
8Heriot-Watt University
ABSTRACT
Aims: Changes in water law and policy, in the UK and further afield, are promoting social and
service innovation, as well as technical innovation in the water sector. In particular, the
separation of wholesale and retail water and sewerage services for English and Welsh
commercial water systems customers is leading to a focus on service innovation. But what do
we mean by 'service innovation'? To whom does it apply and how do these parties interpret it?
To answer these questions, this paper presents the findings of recent interviews undertaken by
and case studies presented to the Water Efficiency (WATEF) Network Service Innovation
Technical Committee.
Study design: The paper explores definitions and interpretations of service innovation (SI)
and discusses case studies where SI is already being realised in the water sector.
Methodology: The study was conducted using interviews and case studies.
Results: A tree-branch model of SI is proposed, emphasising the placement of the customer
as the focus of SI. A revised definition of SI was also provided to assist water service providers
in enhancing the services provided to their customers.
Conclusion: The study revealed that the water sector offers scope for improvement in
fundamental business services. These include billing, customer relations, communication
(information services) and data provision and visualisation.
Keywords: change, client, concept, delivery, service innovation, technology, water efficiency
1. INTRODUCTION
The Water Act received Royal Assent on 14th May 2014 [1], ushering in wholesale and retail
separation and opportunities for non-domestic (business) customers to change their supplier.
Previously only the largest water users in England and Wales could switch suppliers. However,
the process of deregulation will take place between 2014 and 2017, when all non-domestic
customers will theoretically be able to switch water service providers (WSPs). In the context of
this deregulated water market, WSPs are becoming more focussed on recruiting new, and
retaining existing customers. It is unlikely that the unit cost of water between water companies
will be a large enough differential to encourage organisations to switch their provider [2].
Within the Water Act a number of measures are highlighted as potentially catalysing change:
price limits, social tariffs, WaterSure (for low-income customers), water metering and
concessionary schemes for surface water drainage charges. In the past, the variability of
service across more than 22 WSPs has led to non-standardised billing, customer service
*Corresponding author: Tel: +44 (0)1392 723730
Email: sarah.ward@exeter.ac.uk Tel.: +44 01392 723730.
E-mail address: sarah.ward@exeter.ac.uk

dissatisfaction and high cost transactions (time and money). Non-domestic customers in
Scotland are already within a deregulated market, where efficiencies have been made by
standardising and improving certain aspects of service provision [2]. But has deregulation led
to service innovation? And what is meant by this term? Innovation is broadly defined by Ofwat
as the application of new technology, business processes or management expertise that
delivers any improvements to customer service, the environment or cost efficiency [2].
However, “Service Innovation” within the context of the UK water industry is widely discussed
but often not defined further. More generally this has been broken down into innovation around
service products, service processes and service organisational change. The need for a
definition emerges in order to benchmark whether different options are indeed innovative and
service-focused. Without at least a working definition, almost anything could be deemed SI,
which would not facilitate useful assessment of how WSPs are performing [2].
1.1 Definitions of service innovation
First documented in 1993 by Miles [3], service innovation (SI) as a concept began by
characterising the features of services associated with innovation, usually of a technological or
expertise-based product. This early research covered innovation in services, products,
processes and firms (organisations and industry) and was broader than just looking at the novel
aspects of the services themselves. A useful typology of SI was elaborated by [4] and is
illustrated in Figure 1. The four dimensions of den Hertog and Bilderbeek’s typology represent
the SI concept, the client, the delivery system and technological options. Further to this, Van
Ark et al. [5] proposed the following definition of SI: “a new or considerably changed service
concept, client interaction channel, service delivery system or technological concept that
individually, but most likely in combination, leads to one or more (re)new(ed) service functions
that are new to the firm and do change the service/good offered on the market and do require
structurally new technological, human or organizational capabilities of the service organization.”
Fig. 1. A four dimensional typology of service innovation (adapted from [4])
With regard to small to medium enterprises (SMEs), the European Commission [6] sees SI as
having transformative (disruptive) powers in relation to economic change and as being a
catalyst of cross-sectoral enrichment and new business models. Similarly to the
aforementioned definition by [5], the EC defines SI as comprising: “…new or significantly
improved service concepts and offerings as such, irrespective of whether they are introduced
by service companies or manufacturing companies, as well as innovation in the service
process, service infrastructure, customer processing, business models, commercialisation
(sales, marketing, delivery), service productivity and hybrid forms of innovation serving several
user groups in different ways simultaneously.” The EC goes on to elaborate on its definition of
transformative power, by asserting that SI should enhance customer experience by disrupting
existing channels to market, processes and models, acting on the whole value chain.
Consequently, emerging sectors, industries and markets are shaped influencing modernisation
and change at the activity concept, company client, sectoral system and market levels. Ten
‘dos’ and ‘don’ts’ in relation to SI are suggested, which include:
NEW SERVICE
CONCEPT
(DIMENSION 1)
NEW CLIENT
INTERFACE
(DIMENSION 2)
NEW SERVICE
DELIVERY SYSTEM
(DIMENSION 3)
TECH-
NOLOGICAL
OPTIONS
(DIMENSION 4)
Organisation
development
Distribution
Marketing

• Don’ts: focusing purely on research and technological innovation, supporting individual
specialised firms, copy-pasting best practice, following without reflecting, not having
specific targets, launching pilots in isolation, match a problem to an innovation;
• Do’s: focusing on all knowledge and innovation, support transformation, support firm
clusters and networks, focus on manufacturing and services, search for next best
practice, capitalise on regional competencies, be systemic and cross-sectoral, launch
large-scale demonstrations, match an innovation to a problem.
Additionally, ideas for support instruments include:
• For companies: innovation clinics/incubation centres, vouchers, management
guidance, access to finance;
• For sector: design centres, living labs, cluster support and assistance;
• For market: awareness raising, cooperation incentives, vouchers, procurement
initiatives.
Whilst these have been developed with SMEs as a focus, it is asserted that they could be useful
at other levels and across a range of sectors via the ‘spill-over’ effect (where events in one
context occur because of events in a seemingly unrelated context). The EC definition fits well
within den Hertog and Bilderbeek’s 4D typology and therefore this research uses the typology
as a framework for considering SI by WSPs in England under deregulation.
A sector in which deregulation has taken place includes the energy sector, where deregulation
has resulted in realignment from a cost-based to performance-based focus considering
satisfaction and security of supply [7]. Innovation to services for domestic (residential)
customers have included information services (receiving consumption information by email,
digital TV or instant message to a mobile phone), consumption simulation (to estimate future
demand based on a range of practices), smart measurement (metering, monitoring and
response), smart control and delegation (whereby customers enable their retailer to
electronically control their equipment (e.g. white goods) to reduce consumption), roaming
(customer can access the system via an ‘app’) and payment (wide variety of environment-
independent options incorporating customer preferences).
1.2 A working definition of service innovation for water efficiency
With the previously outlined options and typology in mind, the research presented in this paper
was undertaken to develop an understanding of what SI could look like for the water sector and
the types of options WSPs could consider offering to their customers. The paper forms part of
the annual report of the Water Efficiency (WATEF) Network’s Service Innovation Technical
Committee (SITC), which is tasked with scoping:
• Retail competition service innovation for water efficiency;
• Innovative approaches to delivering services with customers and considering aspects
such as the hydro-social contract and who is thought to be responsible for water
efficiency delivery and messaging;
• Delivering partnership working for water efficiency (energy and social housing retrofit
programmes – lessons learned, extent of implementation, further roll-out);
• Ensuring water efficiency is part of wider integrated service innovation such as Water
Sensitive Cities.
This paper focuses on the first two objectives and proceeds as follows. The next section outlines
the data collection and analysis methods used to refine the working definition of SI presented
below. The following section presents the results and a discussion that recontextualises the
findings in relation to the literature presented. A final conclusion section reiterates the main
themes of the paper. Based on the literature presented above and discussions held at WATEF
SITC meetings, the following working definition of SI for water efficiency is considered within
the research presented in this paper: “Service innovation for water efficiency represents the
concepts, clients, delivery systems and technological options available to the water sector
through which to develop new or improved service functions resulting in an enhanced customer
experience and requiring structural organisational change.”

2. METHODOLOGY
In order to test and refine the working definition of service innovation for water efficiency
(SIfWE) and gain insight into how SIfWE is perceived within the water sector, a mixed methods
approach comprising the following data collection methods was utilised:
1. Links to an online questionnaire-based survey form and separate case study template form
were circulated to WATEF SITC member’s networks;
2. Informal semi-structured interviews were held with experts in the field of water management
either in person or by phone, with notes taken, which were anonymised to comply with
standard ethical practice.
The online case study template form consisted of 8 questions (7 open, 1 closed) regarding the
participant’s SIfWE initiative. The closed question consisted of a list of types of service
innovation, from which the participant was invited to match their initiative to a type. The types
listed were: pricing, inset, competition, rental/lease agreement, partnership, target, technical,
service, research, asset delivery, customer engagement and other. These types were
developed a priori by the WATEF SITC, not as an exhaustive prescriptive list, but to guide
participants in thinking about how they would categorise their initiative. The open questions
orientated around the features of the initiative, such as its name, how long it had been in
operation (or if not yet operating, when the concept was first registered), the outcomes of the
initiative (such as costs, water savings and wider benefits), ongoing monitoring, partnerships
and dissemination. The interview pro forma consisted of an introductory section on the context
of the Water Act and deregulation, followed by questions regarding reimagining service models
for water provision and examples of SI from other sectors. Questions were designed to help
prompt and funnel the participant into suggesting a definition of SI. For each data gathering
method participants gave their informed consent for any information provided to be used in an
analysis to be presented in this paper. The information gathered was triangulated [8] into the
analysis that follows in order to refine the working definition of SIfWE.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
In total the details of five SI initiatives were registered by participants through the online case
study template, four interviews were held with water management experts and only two
participants completed the questionnaire. The low participation rate, particularly for the
questionnaire, could be explained by a current lack of understanding regarding what comprises
SIfWE or participants were constrained by not being able to find time to submit their information.
A further explanation could be that of ‘innovation protectionism’, a concept that emerged from
the data and that is explained in more detail later in this section.
3.1 Service innovation for water efficiency – Initiatives
The real and hypothetical initiatives described by case study and interview participants are
summarised in Table 1 and represent a small snapshot of the types of SIfWE that could be or
are already in practice. Interview discussions across all the participants are summarised for
each question in the following short sub-sections.
3.1.1 Q1. What do you imagine could be an alternative service model to maximise water
efficiency (WE)?
Some participants suggested an alternative model where WSPs do not operate in silos, but
facilitate water management in an integrated and holistic approach. Also, a new method of
financing water efficiency projects to offset the low cost of water was highlighted. In contrary to
this view, one participant suggested that water efficiency in a retail market is counterproductive
and WSPs will be reluctant to maximise water efficiency. However, overall, participants agreed
that the existing service model of water supply and treatment is very good.

Table 1. Real and hypothetical service innovation initiatives for water efficiency/the water sector
Initiative Type (listed in Section 2) Details/Outcomes (potential or actual) Known impact to date
(stage of initiative)
Rainwater harvesting or
greywater reuse equipment
leasing
Rental/lease agreements Reduction in potable water use, access to alternative
sources, reorientation from product to practice,
changing social norms
N/A (hypothetical)
Runoff capture and sharing Partnership
(social/community), Other
As above N/A (pilot)
Retail competition in
Scotland
Competition, service Efficiencies in billing, smart metering reducing water
use: 5% of businesses switched supplier, but 50%
renegotiated beneficial supply terms
34KtCO2, 16bn litres water saved
(completed)
Reverse auction Service, technical,
partnerships
Ability to directly support implementation of
customer-selected options to improve source water
quality, reduce polluted runoff and source control
Fowey catchment - £360K distributed to
farmers for improvements on a value-for-
money basis (completed)
Water efficiency retrofit Technical Improving facilities and service delivery whilst
achieving better water and cost savings
35% water savings (ongoing calculations),
positive guest feedback, behaviour transfer to
home (completed: 28-room hotel)
Combining water & energy
efficiency in Wales
Partnerships, targets, service,
technical
Agreement between multiple water/energy
stakeholders to provide equipment for free if records
of installations were maintained
£30M spent across a 6K home uptake
(completed: see http://arbed.org/en/about-
arbed for more info)
Enhanced service Service, pricing, other Reduced price water efficiency fittings, quicker failure
response times and access to other services (flood
protection & SuDS)
N/A (hypothetical)
Green tariff Service, pricing, other Similar to energy companies – customers pay to
support alternative water supply system infrastructure
(rainwater, greywater, wastewater reuse)
N/A (hypothetical)
Service rather than product
access
Rental/lease agreements Similar to services provided in the music streaming,
transportation device and floor covering industry –
lease the associated service rather than the product
(CDs/cars-bikes/carpets) – water efficient fittings?
N/A (hypothetical)
Examine B2B* operations Service, pricing Getting billing, metering and monitoring right is key –
paying for equipment? SI is solving these issues
N/A (ongoing)
Enhanced communication
with subsidised monitoring
Service, technical, customer
engagement
Already undertaken by some energy companies to
facilitate low daily consumptions
N/A (cross-sectoral)
Rising block tariff Service, pricing Including threshold allowance for certain segments N/A (proposed)

3.1.2 Q2. Thinking about other services where you are free to choose your provider,
such as gas and electricity, can you think of examples of ways organisations operate
their services that you consider to be innovative?
Energy and Gas suppliers were cited as examples of innovative organisations with strong
parallels to the water sector. All participants suggested that WSPs should look to energy
companies for inspiration and direction with innovative schemes such as green tariffs, providing
water monitoring equipment at no cost to the customer, improved communication channels,
shorter billing cycles and on-demand water usage data available. However, one participant
expressed a strong view that for the WSPs: “…innovation is a million miles away” and they
should focus on getting the basics right, such as correct billing, before attempting to be
innovative. The same participant also suggested that WSPs should look at any Business to
Business (B2B) retail operation for guidance on the basics of business.
3.1.3 Q3. Water is a key ingredient of life, and yet most take this precious resource for
granted. If you had to reinvent the way water is sold, distributed and valued as
resource: what would it look like?
A common sentiment was that WSPs perform their water treatment and supply operations to a
very high standard and overall run the water network exceptionally well. Therefore reinvention
of the water supply system is not particularly useful or needed. However, one participant
suggested this effective and centralised supply system also serves to perpetuate an emotional
disconnect between the water from a tap and the source of the water. In a similar vein, the
same participant asserted that the use of potable water for sanitation purposes (toilet flushing
etc.) would not prevail in a reinvented water network. The majority of participants expressed
the low cost of water as significant barrier to reinforcing the true value of water. One participant
expressed this sentiment by stating: “…people do not value anything that is cheap…”, and
suggested the use of rising block tariffs, as: “when it [water] costs more, people will consider
water efficiency products more”. In addition, it was suggested that WSPs should also consider
alternative models of financing water efficiency products.
3.1.4 Q4. Focusing on a wide range of services, such as staying in hotels, buying food
or going to the doctors; can you think of examples of ways in which services are
provided that you feel are innovative?
Participants provided existing examples of innovation in other sectors, such as: high fidelity
music rental via internet streaming; short-term vehicle rental (bikes and motor vehicles) and
floor cover leasing, as opposed to buying a carpet. These examples followed a common theme
of accessing a service instead of a product. In addition, examples of innovation followed an
efficiency theme, such as: touchscreen patient arrival to avoid queuing; free time-limited Wi-Fi
and countdown buzzers to alert and placate hungry (infant) diners.
3.1.5 Q5. Returning to our focus on water efficiency, please try to design your own
definition of Service Innovation.
All participants struggled to design their own definition, instead preferring to suggest requisite
components of a SI definition. The components have been grouped into broad themes, labelled
Fundamentals, Cost and Collaboration and are shown in Table 2.
Fundamentals Cost Collaboration
Better communication A true cost of water
reflected
Integrated water
management
Monitoring & measurement Water efficiency cost
incentives
Improved access to WSP
Table 2. Key phrase components given by participants for a working definition of SI
In summary, all participants agreed that WSPs already provide high quality water through an
effective distribution network, which did not require innovation per-se. The overwhelming

message was that WSPs, in innovating, need to focus on business fundamentals. These
include billing, customer relations and improved provision of data and its visualisation. It was
apparent that the customer should be the beneficiary of the result of any SI and therefore
elements of SI should orientate around enhancing the provision of services to them. In
interpreting these discussions, the authors visualised this interaction as being a tree, with the
customer as the trunk and the SI initiatives as the branches (Figure 2). This is in contrast to the
typology presented in Figure 1, which locates technological options at the junction of concepts,
interfaces and delivery systems. However, these processes are still fundamental to achieving
SI in the tree-branch model, as some of the options suggested represent interfaces (customer
relations, data visualisation) and delivery systems (billing, information services), which may or
may not require technology to support them.
Fig. 3. The tree-branch model of SI for the water sector
Additionally, most participants agreed that the energy sector could provide a blue print for the
water sector to follow, particularly with respect to customer relationship management and
providing consumptive data in line with initiatives described at the end of Section 1.1. These
have also been added to Figure 3. Furthermore, the low financial cost of water was identified
as a barrier to engaging people with water efficiency. This barrier was identified by the majority
of participants and all largely agreed an alternative pricing required further investigation and
testing. The final question, asking participants to suggest a definition of SI, was in hindsight a
very challenging question. However, all participants provided elements of such a definition,
which enabled the working definition to be further developed. Participants kindly provided
insightful data, however the volume of data was lower than anticipated. A low participation rate,
due to a myriad of reasons, is common in research. In this instance it is hypothesised that the
low rate could be attributed to the emergent concept of innovation protectionism, as previously
discussed.
3.2 Innovation protectionism or protecting intellectual property?
As briefly mentioned previously, a further concept that was elucidated though the informal
conversations with potential participants is that which the authors have termed ‘innovation
protectionism’. The main feature of this concept is that a SI (or other initiative) exists, but the
owners of the initiative are reluctant to share or disseminate information about it before they
themselves have. This concept emerged initially as a way of explaining the low survey and case
study participation rate. Through discussion it then became apparent that it was a wider
phenomenon than has perhaps been documented in the innovation literature to date. It is
understandable that the owners of a perhaps novel or previously untrialed initiative would be
reluctant to release information into the public domain before they have had a chance to release
such information. It is also a process that would probably parallel the protection of intellectual
property that has not been formally protected via a patent, copyright or other mechanism of
‘know how’ registration. However, the practice of innovation protectionism could result in the
impeded and delayed diffusion of innovation, which is a recognised problem within the water
sector. For example, innovation activity in water-related technologies has been increasing over
the last two decades; however there is a bias towards supply-side technologies [9]. Indeed, a
Accurate, accessible billing
Enhanced customer relations
& communication
Access to data & its
visualisation
Information services (email,
instant messaging)
Consumption
simulation
Smart measurement &
control
Water efficiency cost
incentives
Customer

special volume of the Journal of Cleaner Production, due for publication in March 2016, will
focus on the ‘dynamics of water innovation’ to document the application of a range of
innovations in ICT, structural change, learning and strategizing, competence and capacity
building and social innovation [10], within the water sector and between the water sector and
other sectors. Additionally, a recent European Commission report [11] identified that a
significant barrier to innovation is the widespread reluctance to trial new initiatives. It may be
that trials are being undertaken, but are not being widely publicised due to innovation
protectionism or fear of losing rights or ownership of unprotected intellectual property
(ideas/initiatives). This echoes standard WSP practice, where techniques and data may be for
internal use only and not shared across the sector, often leading to a number of different
processes for achieving the same goal or objective.
3.3 Refining the SIfWE definition – what, where, who?
This paper began by suggesting a working definition for SIfWE of: “Service innovation for water
efficiency represents the concepts, clients, delivery systems and technological options available
to the water sector through which to develop new or improved service functions resulting in an
enhanced customer experience and requiring structural organisational change.” However, the
results guided the definition from a narrow focus on water efficiency toward a more holistic view
of SI. Accordingly, a refined definition is proposed:
“Service innovation for the water sector places the WSP customer as the focus of service
innovation. The customer is both the catalyst and recipient of transformative change in concepts
(ideas and initiatives, such as alternative tariffs, data visualisation), technological solutions
(especially ICT), delivery systems (for example accurate billing, email, instant messaging) and
supple organisational structures (for instance responsible processes, people and teams).
Service Innovation enables the customer to select the appropriate options to enhance their
experience, leading to a valued integrated water management service.”
The ‘what’ is represented by the concepts and initiatives, the ‘where’ is represented by the
WSPs and organisational structures and the ‘who’ is represented by WSP customers who are
the focus of SI concepts, initiatives, interfaces and delivery systems. However the proposed
definition cannot be the ‘final’ word. Definitions should always change and evolve in response
to new knowledge, ideas and context. Additionally, the triangulation of the findings highlighted
that SI should not focus solely on water efficiency, for example service enhancements could be
realised through improvements in many aspects of the water management process.
3.4 Beyond Service Innovation for Water Efficiency
It is also useful to situate SI in the wider sustainability transitions movement that is being
commented on in the urban water sector [12]. These are often focussed on transition occurring
within the WSP rather than looking at the wider hydro-social contract that WSPs have with the
community. From a water efficiency perspective, the move from a supply-led to demand-led
planning paradigm has shaped much of the water resources planning in the UK based on a
twin track approach. In parts of Australia, the need for more integrated water management has
led to the concept of water sensitive cities and the transition towards these is based on socio-
political drivers and service delivery functions. Although not explicit features of the water
cycle/water sensitive city, there is a need for cross-sectoral SI in order to deliver new
decentralised sources and to reinforce water sensitive behaviours [13].
A further conceptual approach incorporating elements of SI has been presented by Sydney’s
Institute of Sustainable Futures [14]. This associates the relative cost per household of water
infrastructure provision with a certain generation of water infrastructure (Figure 4). The third
generation in particular focuses on alternative but centralised supply options such as
desalination or wastewater reuse. In Australia, the high cost associated with such options was
justified by the short time-frame in which to make planning decisions to address the Millennium
Drought (1995-2012). However, the fourth generation focuses on integrated service provision
and customer service, with the aim of meeting multiple objectives. For example, green
infrastructure could be regarded as fourth generation as it can deliver water saving, stormwater
management, heat island mitigation and health benefits, which have been realised in projects
such as the Olympic Park in London [15].

Fig. 4. The ‘Four Generations of Water Infrastructure’ and their associated relative cost
per household (adapted from [14])
Considering how SI fits within fourth generation infrastructure provision enables us to think
beyond services provided directly to the customer. An example of this is innovative permitting
and licensing, where discharges from treatment works to receiving water bodies are controlled
based on dynamic risk-based operational variables depending on a range of indicators rather
than set levels. Such practices are SIs that allow the needs of the customer and the
environment (both requiring good water quality to survive) to be met, potentially with a lower
cost (monetary and energy/carbon) [16]. Whilst not directly implemented at the customer or
building-scale where water efficiency products would be, these approaches still enable water
to be treated and used more efficiently than under current practice.
4. CONCLUSION
The Water Act will (from 2017) enable wholesale-retail separation and in turn, should create
competition in the market. From the present day and in the future, Water Service Providers
(WSPs) will be challenged on services other than the supply and cost of water (the product).
Retail competition is unlikely to result in a lower-cost price war between WSPs and therefore
service innovation (SI) offers WSPs an alternative way to retain and recruit new customers.
SI has previously been a loosely-defined and slightly intangible concept, but the research
presented in this paper has led to an empirically derived revised version for the water sector.
Case study information and interview discussions revealed that the water sector is perceived
as operating a high quality infrastructure and delivering an exceptional product. In addition the
water sector offers scope for improvement in fundamental business services. These include
billing, customer relations, communication (information services) and data provision and
visualisation. A tree-branch model of SI is suggested, emphasising the placement of the
customer as the focus of SI and a revised definition of SI has been developed in order to assist
WSPs in enhancing the services provided to their customers. The definition is: “Service
innovation for the water sector places the WSP customer as the focus of service innovation.
The customer is both the catalyst and recipient of transformative change in concepts (ideas
and initiatives, such as alternative tariffs, data visualisation), technological solutions (especially
ICT), delivery systems (for example accurate billing, email, instant messaging) and supple
organisational structures (for instance responsible processes, people and teams). Service
Innovation enables the customer to select the appropriate options to enhance their experience,
leading to a valued integrated water management service.” Future discussions on and research
relating to SI should focus on further elucidating lessons from parallels with the deregulation of
the energy industry and other sectors in which clearly defined SI has yielded success.
Additionally, further social science-based research is warranted to investigate what is important
to non-domestic customers and how they would visualise an enhanced service from WSPs.
Developing this understanding would enable WSPs to innovate accordingly.
Relative cost
per
household
Generation of Water Infrastructure
(1) Unmanaged
(2) Centralised
(3) Transitional
(neo-centralised)
(4) Emerging
(multi-objective)
We are here?

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to thank all those who shared their time and knowledge in the research
undertaken for this paper.
REFERENCES
[1] HM Government (2014) Water Act 2014.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/21/pdfs/ukpga_20140021_en.pdf
Accessed 09-01-15
[2] Ofwat (2011) Innovation priorities for the water sector. Water Sector Innovation Leadership
Group report. Crown Copyright.
http://www.ofwat.gov.uk/regulating/pap_pos1105innovpriorities.pdf
Accessed 09-01-15
[3] Miles, I. (1993) Services in the New Industrial Economy. Futures, 25 (6), 653-672.
[4] den Hertog, P. and Bilderbeek, R. (1999) Conceptualising service innovation and service
innovation patterns. Report to the Research Programme Strategic Information Provision in
Innovation and Services (SIID) for the Ministry of Economic Affairs, Directorate for General
Technology Policy.
[5] van Ark, B., Broersma, L. and den Hertog, P. (2003) Services Innovation, Performance
and Policy: A Review. Research Series No. 6, Directorate-General for Innovation, Ministry of
Economic Affairs, The Hague.
[6] European Commission (2013) Guidebook Series: The Smart Guide to Service Innovation.
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/regional-sme-
policies/documents/no.4_service_innovation_en.pdf
Accessed 22-05-15
[7] Information Technology for European Advancement (2007) Innovation report: services-
oriented platform provides new approach to residential energy sector. ITEA Project SHOPS.
https://itea3.org/project/result/download/5580
Accessed 22-05-15
[8] Robson, C. (2002) Real World Research. Blackwell, Oxford.
[9] OECD (2014) Invention and international diffusion of water conservation and availability
technologies: evidence from patent data. Working Party on Climate, Investment and
Development, Environment Policy Committee, Environment Directorate.
[10] Wehn, U. and Montalvo, C. (2014) The Dynamics of Water Innovation. Special volume
Call for Papers for the Journal of Cleaner Production, Elsevier.
http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-cleaner-production/call-for-papers/the-dynamics-
of-water-innovation/
Accessed 09-01-15
[11] European Commission (2015) Future Brief: Innovation in the Water Sector. EC Report.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/innovation_european_wat
er_sector_FB10_en.pdf
Accessed 22-05-15
[12] Bell, S., Ward, S., Butler, D. (2014) Retrofitting Sustainable Integrated Water
Management at Household, Building and Urban Scales. IN: Dixon, T., Eames, M., Hunt, M.
and Lannon, S. (eds) Urban Retrofitting for Sustainability: Mapping the Transition to 2050.
221-233. Routledge, Abingdon.
[13] Brown, R., Keath, N. and Wong, T. (2008) Transitioning to Water Sensitive Cities:
Historical, Current and Future Transition States. Proceedings of the 11th International
Conference on Urban Drainage, Edinburgh.
http://web.sbe.hw.ac.uk/staffprofiles/bdgsa/11th_International_Conference_on_Urban_Draina
ge_CD/ICUD08/pdfs/618.pdf
Accessed 09-01-15
[14] White, S. and Turner, A. (2014) Sustainable water futures: integrated supply demand
planning. Institute of Sustainable Futures’ Master Class – Global Trends in Water Efficiency.
University of Technology Sydney.
http://www.watefnetwork.co.uk/files/default/resources/Virtual_master_06-
13/StuartWhiteWaterEfficienc.pdf
Accessed 09-01-15
[15] Foreign and Commonwealth Office (2010) Going for Green – Parkland in the Olympic
Park. F&CO YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_V-NB2v6zI
Accessed 04-04-2013

[16] Meng, F., Fu, G. and Butler, D. (2014) Incorporating cost-effectiveness analysis into
effluent permitting through integrated urban wastewater system modelling and multi-objective
optimisation. Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Urban Drainage 2014,
Kuching, Malaysia, September 7-12, 2014.

WatefCon2015_submission_62

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to WatefCon2015_submission_62 (20)

More from Aaron Burton (14)

WatefCon2015_submission_62