Perspectives on Utility Benchmarking

Piers Cross

What is Benchmarking?

Systematic tool that allows comparative performance assessment (indicators for organizational processes, outputs) against best practices

Traditionally measures performance on same organization/processes over time

Can be used internally, competitively within similar or different industries or collaboratively

Types of Benchmarking

Metric BM – showing quantitative measurement of differences in performance indicators indicators over time, e.g IBNET – shows gaps

Doesn’t necessarily explain causes of gaps Process BM – management analysis of selected processes,

comparing and learning from highest performers. Process BM uses metric data but selects and studies key processes.

Focus on single processes, can miss context Consumer/Customer/Citizen Perceptions - Report Cards,

surveys can reveal gaps between consumer and provider perceptions, over time helps policy-makers evaluate utility performance.Needs repeated, independent surveys, hard to finance.

Model Approach – Comparative performance analysis against an theoretical or ideal “model company” of efficient processes

Can miss context influences

Performance Improvement

Performance Assessment + BM

Actions to Improve Performance

Vision of WSS Utility Benchmarking

Utilities are entry points to improve WSS management and meet MDGs and beyond

Benchmarking can improve performance of WSS Utility operators by: Creating knowledge for informed decisions Improving the impact from investments Sharing comparative knowledge, especially

successes Tool for sector analysis and advocacy Building capacity of weaker utilities and

incentivizing high performers Mutual support between utilities

Agree or Disagree?

1. The diversity of WSS Utilities in Africa makes them well-suited to benchmarking

2. Competitive performance data of water utilities in Africa provides the incentives make the tough decisions to improve utility performance?

3. Utility performance in Africa is significantly related to access and use of comparative performance data?

4. The experience of twinning between high performing and improving utility shows a marked improvement in weaker utility performances?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Walvis Bay MunicipalityNWASCO

Cape town metroKIWASCO

ADAMAWindhoek Municipality

DIRE DAWALWB

KadunaSONEB

BWBELECTRA

MWSCWASA

eThekwini Metro (Durban)REGIDESO

ONEAUpper Nile Water Corporation

AdeM MaputoJ IRAMA

AdeM PembaAdeM Beira

AdeM NampulaDrakenstein Municipality

ELECTROGAZAdeM Quilimane

DUWSMWSA

Percentage of total population in service area covered by water utilities

0 500000 1000000 1500000

J oburgCape town metroeThekwiniSODECISDE

Khartoum WCGWCREGIDESOAWSANWASCOLagos

SONEBJ IRAMADAWASCONWSCONEAAdeM MaputoKadunaSPENNWSCMWSC

Drakenstein LWSCWindhoekDUWSWASABWB

ELECTROGAZFCTKatsinaELECTRASWSCLWBPlateau

MWSAADAMASouth Darfur WCUpper Nile WCAdeM BeiraWalvis Bay

DIRE DAWACRWBKIWASCOAdeM NampulaAdeM PembaOshakati

AdeM Quilimane

Total Connections

Total connections (Residential & Non-Residential)

Range of Utility Institutional Arrangements

Percentage of urban HH >2 kms from their water source

Average hours of insufficient water supply in a month

0 20 40 60 80

MauritaniaSirera Leone

GhanaCameroonTanzaniaEthiopia

Congo (Brazza)Uganda

MadagascarNiger

ZambiaDRC

NigeriaSouth Africa

% of Households

0 20 40 60 80 100

NamibiaMalawi

LesothoKenya

EthiopiaGhana

Guinea-BissauMadagascar

Congo, Dem. Rep.Burkina Faso

GuineaRwanda

CameroonMauritania

MaliNigerBenin

Cape Verde

Number of hours in a month

0%20%40%60%80%

100%

Water andenergy

combined

Water andsanitationcombined

Urban andrural combined

Decentralized Verticallyintegrated

Num

ber o

f cou

ntrie

s

Yes No

0 20 40 60 80

MauritaniaSirera Leone

GhanaCameroonTanzaniaEthiopia

Congo (Brazza)Uganda

MadagascarNiger

ZambiaDRC

NigeriaSouth Africa

% of Households

Piped Water

Standposts Wells/ boreholes

Surface Water Vendors

1990-1995 50% 29% 20% 6% 3%

1996-2000 43% 25% 21% 5% 2%

2001-2005 39% 24% 24% 7% 4%

Evolution of Urban Water Supply in Africa

Piped SupplyPublic Standposts

Wells/boreholesSurface Water

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

Figure 2-10.a: Prevalence of wells and boreholes

Patterns of Water Access in African Cities

Piped SupplyPublic Standposts

Wells/boreholesSurface Water

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

Figure 2-10.b: Prevalence of stand posts

Piped SupplyPublic Standposts

Wells/boreholesSurface Water

0%

20%

40%

60%

Figure 2-10.c: Prevalence of piped water

Challenges for BM of WSS Utilities in Africa

Diversity, scale, language No shared customers.. not real

competitors Little incentives to gather and

analyze quality data Little capacity for analysis Not always an evidence-based

environment

 Country Annual change in

coverage

Utility efficienc

y

Utility Cost recovery

Annual expenditu

re per capita

Regulation score

Reform score Governance score

Annual ODA per capita

Burkina Faso 7.40% Low high   high low high high

Uganda 5.51% Low high low high high low low

Ethiopia 4.50% Low low low low low low low

Benin 4.38% High high high low low high high

Chad 3.63%     low low low low high

Cote d'Ivoire 3.30% High low low low high high low

Rwanda 3.01% Low high low low low low low

Namibia 2.90%     high low low low high

Madagascar 2.42%     low low high low low

Niger 2.42% High high high high high high high

Malawi 2.37% Low low low low low high high

DRC 2.25% High low   low low high low

Lesotho 2.22%     High low low high high

Senegal 1.86%     high high high high high

Zambia 1.04% Low low high high high high high

Mozambique 0.68% Low low low high high high high

Ghana 0.42%     high high high low high

Tanzania 0.41% Low low low high low low high

Kenya -0.09% Low low low high high high low

Nigeria -2.00% low low high   low low low

Coverage Against Sector Performance in Africa Utilities

Twinning has a Mixed Track Record

Many launched, few survive and show impact

Consult contract not deep partnership

Utility may have little say or ownership

Main Messages Performance improvement of utilities is critical to service

improvement in developing countries Performance improvement is a complex and interrelated

management challenge: political will, institutional reform and financial viability are important

Benchmarking – especially consistent applied and used innovatively - can stimulate the reform and financing process and be of great use to management: better data, analysis, communications, ownership of actions, and stronger consumer voice can make a difference

Need to incentivize use of benchmarking for it to be effective

Since effect is varied, be strategic in selection of application of benchmarking innovations and link to reform processes for impact