KNOWLEDGE CAPTURE - A CASE STUDYOF THE FREDERICK COUNTYSANITATION AUTHORITY
Jason Jennings*, Myron Olstein, Phil Hannan,Wellington Jones1
*Black & Veatch EnterpriseManagement Solutions
18310 Montgomery Village Ave, Suite 500,Gaithersburg, MD 20879
1Frederick CountySanitation Authority
ABSTRACT
The American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AwwaRF)and Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF) co-funded a researchproject titled “Succession Planning for a Vital Workforce in the InformationAge.” This study began in January 2003. This study was driven by a numberof diverse factors, including:
· The demographics of the current workforce which is expected to resultin the loss of sizeable numbers of senior employees during the next 10years;
· The changing nature of the new, replacement workforce;
· The changing training needs for new employees as our utility plantsbecome more and more automated; and
· Poor preparedness of existing utilities with respect to knowledgemanagement, succession planning and retention.
While water utilities in general must address the issues associated with thechanging workforce, the wastewater field is particularly prone to the loss ofknowledge as many employment and service tenures coincide with thepromulgation of the Clean Water Act in 1972 establishing the basis for theupgraded/expanded treatment plants that followed in the 1970’s and 1980’s.Based on brief introductions of the FCSA participants at the kickoff meeting, it was apparent the average age of the pilot study group met or exceeded theindustry age statistics. In one key operational area, all three FCSA employeeswere in their mid to late 50’s and within several years of retirement.
An approach to capturing important tacit knowledge within a short time frame wasdeveloped and The Frederick County Sanitation Authority (FCSA) contributed tothe research effort by conducting a knowledge process mapping pilot study withthe help of members of the AwwaRF research team. The AwwaRF/WERF projectdeveloped a “Knowledge Capture” methodology - the first such demonstration inthe water and wastewater utility industry.
The two primary objectives of the pilot study exercise were to map the criticalresources and knowledge, and to identify the flow of work that directly addsvalue or addresses critical operating parameters. This second objective wouldincrease in importance as the knowledge capture exercises were conducted.The exercises revealed secondary benefits to the Authority not directly relatedto the tacit knowledge sought during the pilot.
KEYWORDS
Succession planning, workforce planning, knowledge management.
INTRODUCTION
For two days, August 25-26, 2003, Black & Veatch and Frederick County (VA)Sanitation Authority (FCSA) conducted a Pilot Study to perform processknowledge mapping and capture to facilitate succession planning in a utilityorganization.
Located in the Northern end of Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley, Frederick County iscurrently home to over 65,000 persons, the majority of whom are located in threeincorporated cities and towns (Winchester, Stephens City, and Middletown). TheCounty has been adding population at the rate of 3 percent annually over the pastdecade. The County has also become an employment center, increasing privatesector jobs at the rate of nearly 6 percent annually.
Water and sewer services within the County are shared by FCSA, the City ofWinchester, and the Frederick-Winchester Service Authority. FCSA operatesthree treatment plants: two water and one wastewater. FCSA was created in1974 as a centralized water and wastewater service for the county outside of theCity of Winchester. The Authority also purchases finished water from the City ofWinchester, which gets its water from the Shenandoah River. Current averagewater usage in the customer area is 4 million gallons per day.
FCSA also is responsible for water distribution and wastewater collection pipesin their service area. The distribution system is primarily ductile iron and PVCpipe, with limited amounts of cast iron. Services are copper and varying forms ofsmall diameter plastic. FCSA is also responsible for 34 pump stations and a number of grinder pumps within the collection system. Sewer pipe are vitrifiedclay in the older portions of the system, with asbestos-cement and PVC in thenewer portions of the serviced area.
PILOT STUDY APPROACH
The purpose of the pilot study was to map key utility processes, capture criticalprocess knowledge on those processes, share tacit knowledge, identifyknowledge “gaps,” and prepare the groundwork for future knowledge capture anddissemination. In preparing for the meeting, Black & Veatch staff prepared a taxonomy of treatment and distribution/collection components and processes thatwould be used to apply the knowledge mapping to capture the information.
Examples of the apparent knowledge to be captured included methods ofcalculation and/or analysis, decision criteria, processes of work accomplishmentor coordination, experiences and relationships with local suppliers andcontractors, experiences with past circumstances, and knowledge of capabilitiesand limits. Knowledge capture is people-centered, not technology- centered.The key knowledge to be captured is tacit knowledge or knowledge that isunspoken but demonstrated by actions.
The approach to the pilot study consisted of:
· Identification of processes
· Identification of critical processes
· Failure modes and effect Analysis (FMEA)
· Knowledge mapping
IDENTIFYING PROCESSES
Prior to the site visit to Frederick County Sanitation Authority, an attempt wasmade to identify all of the O&M processes involved in the water and wastewateroperations of the utility. We anticipated that a typical water and wastewater utilitywould have between 800 and 1,000 processes involved in its O&M, engineering,managerial and administrative activities. From a Knowledge Capture standpointnot all of these processes are high risk from a loss of tacit knowledge standpoint.For example, there are undoubtedly many processes which are adequatelydocumented or could be performed adequately by an individual with skills appropriate to the position given available documentation. To identify high riskprocesses, the utility work teams were asked to score the process list using a three part scoring system:
· Adequacy/availability of documentation
· Likelihood of problem escalation if not immediately addressed (i.e., willthe situation get worse if not properly addressed), and
· Impact of the process on other processes (if the process goes bad will it affect other processes?)
Work Teams
After background presentations on the information, tools and procedures to beused over the two days, the group performed a knowledge mapping and captureexercise together in the
Wastewater Collection field on the response to physical problems in the collectionsystem to demonstrate the application of the process. Then the Operations andDistribution/Collection staffs split into two sub-groups to address individualprocesses. The master list of processes that FCSA had identified for theknowledge capture workshop:
1. Wastewater Collection
a. Wastewater Pump Station Overflows: Loss of Power.
b. Reporting/Recordkeeping: Documentation.
c. Backup: Mainline Cause
d. Planned Work: Cleaning, Performance, SOPs
2. Water Distribution
a. Service/Restoration Issues: Diameter Equal or Greater Than 16”
b. Service/Restoration Issues: Additional Water Needed FromWinchester
3. Wastewater Treatment
a. WWTP General: Fire, Flooding, Storm Damage
b. WWTP General: Plant Capacity Expansion
c. Biosolids Disposal: New Equipment
4. Water Treatment
a. Source/Supply Facilities: Loss of City Water Source
b. WTP Operations: Response to Process Upsets
c. WTP Operations: Manual Control
d. Filtration: Replace Media & Support Gravel
e. Laboratory: Responses to Water Quality Problems
With the guidance provided by the Black & Veatch Knowledge Managementfacilitator and Black & Veatch specialists leading the FCSA work teams’discussions, the two work teams proceeded to complete the mapping andknowledge capture for the selected processes. The nature of the drilling downdiscussions within the process, and the ownership, responsibility and knowledgedeterminations to be made, and the calculation of the RPN required several hoursto complete for each process.
FAILURE MODES AND EFFECT ANALYSIS
The subsequent Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) used a differentset of criticality criteria:
· Impact of a failure event, including the severity of the failure effect
· Expected frequency of occurrence, and
· Likelihood that the system will detect the cause or failure mode if it occurs
The FMEA is a method used to evaluate the impact of a failure event, including theseverity of the failure effect, the expected frequency of occurrence, and thelikelihood the system will detect the cause or failure mode if it occurs. Each ofthese ratings is scored on a “1-10” basis with greater impact registered by a higher score. The FMEA rating scale is reflected in Figure 1.
Figure 1. FCSA’s FMEA Rating Scale
Applying the scoring as described in Figure 1 yields the Risk Profile Number(RPN) which is calculated as the product of the Severity, Frequency of Occurrence,and Detectability scores. An initial threshold value of “120” was selected todetermine if further “drilling down” within any step of a process was necessary tofurther define the response to a failure. In practice, this number may be adjustedhigher or lower to capture details within the steps as the user deems necessary. As an example, the RPN scoring used in one of evaluated processes is found in
Figure 2.
Figure 2. Excerpt of FMEA Worksheet
Initially, individual processes that exceeded the RPN “120” threshold weresubjected to further examination to explore and capture the tacit knowledgerequired to successfully respond to the failure. More experience with evaluatingprocesses will refine the RPN to address the more critical process steps. Thework teams’ efforts resulted in the 4 processes for which knowledge processmaps were prepared:
· Backup: Mainline Cause
· Service/Restoration Issues: Diameter Equal or Greater Than 16”
· WWTP General: Fire, Flooding, Storm Damage
· WTP Operations: Manual Control
The rating scale used by FCSA is not a standard. The rating scale used by a given utility should fit their needs. For example, a given utility may only need a 1 –5 rating scale. The consistent aspect is that the greater the risk, the higher thescore.
KNOWLEDGE MAPPING
In order to create a knowledge map, some basic parameters related to the“process” had to be defined. These included:
· the process output,
· the user of the output,
· the responsible person(s) in the process,
· the workers in the process,
· the stakeholders or interested parties in the process,
· the beginning and end of the process and
· the quality characteristic of the process.
The flow of the work, critical functions, core resources, best methods, bestpractices and feedback loops were all important to mapping the process.Identifying those participants in the work flow that add value and those criticalparticipants whose knowledge is difficult to replace are important outcomes ofthis mapping.
The knowledge map was conceived to be a flow chart with all the appropriatedecision steps and alternate flow routes incorporated in the chart. Analyzing theflowchart for knowledge components involved, determining the data and its source,the tools, the equipment, the knowledge involved, the knowledge source and theskills involved. The flowchart mapping was simplified to a series of process stepson an electronic table to aide in the workshop execution. This speeded themapping and subsequent analytical steps in the process review and knowledge capture exercises.
Four major areas were identified for knowledge mapping and capture prior tothe workshop. These included wastewater collection, water distribution,wastewater treatment and water treatment. Several major categories withineach process were considered for mapping in the workshop. An example in thewastewater collection field is the response to a sanitary sewer
overflow (SSO) event caused by a physical problem in the pipe. Figure 3 is a listing of the steps shown in the process. Figure 4 captures the flow chartexamination of this process.
Figure 3. Process Steps Table
Figure 4. Process Map of Response to Physical Problems in the CollectionSystem
RESULTS
1. Standard Operating Procedures: The focus of the workshop initially wasextreme events with infrequent but significant impacts. This was derivedfrom the intuition that routine operations and procedures were well mappedwith minimal tacit knowledge to be captured because those events weredealt with on a frequent or regular basis. However, in defining the processand the steps to resolve a situation, it was clear many routine, but importantfunctions from the standpoint of employee performance and customerservice, lacked good, current standard operating procedures (SOPs). Thediscussions identified the need to produce current SOPs in many areas ofFCSA operations.
2. Information Management: The important tacit knowledge that is unique tomany of the team members is derived from previous experiences, goodand bad, in the field or at the treatment plants. With successionmanagement, the focus is on those employees nearing retirement. It islogical to assume that the more experienced employees have more detailed and unique knowledge. Each member of the work teams,regardless of their position, maintains a personal diary or log. In the diaryresides some of the tacit knowledge to be captured. In addition, forfacilities such as wastewater pumping stations, a separate log ismaintained in the pump station documenting both routine and unusualevents, along with the PM schedules and other equipment maintenance performed. A knowledge database that captures these daily observation,maintenance
histories, and results of work operations that is available to all employeesworking in that area enhances the daily operations.
3. Documentation: Work is recorded on a daily basis in manually preparedwork orders.
Work order numbers are not unique in and of themselves and they are filedby month and year for distribution/collection inspections and repairs. Ifelectronic records of customer, sewer segment or water segment historieswere maintained and available with the dispatching of the job, a moreefficient and complete field response could be
implemented by the subsequent staff resolving the problem.
4. Geographic Information Systems (GIS): The Utility Director acknowledgedthat his previous thinking on how to address this issue had focused onGIS technology. He indicated that he now saw the value in an approachthat integrated technology solutions with people and process-basedthinking and analysis.
OBSERVATIONS
The objective of the workshop was to map the critical resources and knowledgeand identify the flow of work that adds value or addresses critical operatingparameters. From that perspective, the workshops succeeded in meeting theobjectives for the processes mapped. However, there were a number ofobservations that developed as outcomes that were not foreseen. These observations involved both the process and the substance or results and include;
1. Team Size: The process worked with teams of 4 members and a teamleader. The drill down within the process was at times tedious. Clearroles among the team emerged in the flow of the mapping and theknowledge capture.
2. Risk Profile Number: The RPN score of “120” as a threshold value can beadjusted up or down to increase the sensitivity of the action steps. In thecase of the distribution system break/leak analysis, the 120 score was notachieved in any of the process steps identified.
3. Source of the Knowledge: The basic information that mapped theknowledge process primarily resided with the owner of the process and wassupplemented to varying degrees by the team members.
4. Critical Tacit Knowledge: The most important tacit knowledge appears tobe at key decision steps, the “triage” of the problem or the decision stepon what response to initiate and the tacit knowledge involved. SOPswould provide documentation for many of the other situations moreroutinely encountered (see “Results” for more discussion).
5. Level of Detail: The process worked best when teams avoidexcessive detail in the process mapping component of the workshop.A guideline that emerged was 15-18 process steps and decisionpoints yielded sufficient detail to start the process
6. Facilitator Role: It is useful to have facilitators who have thoroughknowledge of process mapping and knowledge capture tools but have noimmediate stake in the execution of the utility process. The facilitator canask the obvious questions that might otherwise go unasked.
7. Role of Technology and Systems: Although the knowledge capture processused centered on people knowledge, it would have been useful to have hada systems/information technology resource available with knowledge ofFCSA systems.
8. Role of Management: Knowledge capture requires candor about flaws andgaps in the process execution. Although the presence of the Utility Directordid not hinder that candor in this case, as a general guideline, it would beproductive to question whether senior management should be present whenoperators are asked to be candid about failure modes and failure causes.
9. Meeting Preparation: Operators should be told up front that the processmapping is to improve operations of their process and is not an effort toplace blame or responsibility for any existing system or proceduralshortcomings.
CONCLUSIONS
Initially, the expected benefit was going to be the ability to apply this knowledgecapture process to extreme or limited occurrence events (e.g., flood, drought, largediameter main break), which
is the type of situation that an experienced operator or field supervisor may haveencountered. That knowledge could then be transferred to aid in resolving a futureoccurrence. However, routine events where daily experiences were capturedprimarily in written logs or diaries were more typically captured by this knowledgeprocess. As an added value, the process revealed where current or updatedstandard operating procedures (SOPs) and availability of inventory or historicaldata could be of equal or greater value to succession management thanemergency response procedures. The “last mile” or smaller gap of knowledgeabove and beyond the routine could then be targeted for capture as tacit knowledge.
The Knowledge Mapping and Capture process used at FCSA provided a structured approach to an amorphous problem. The tools seemed to work wellonce the groups had climbed the
learning curve and became more comfortable with the facilitators and the process.One indicator of the value of the process was that FCSA supervisors were anxiousto receive copies of the process documentation produced during the workshop.There appeared to be genuine interest in preparing for and improving how the staffresponds to both routine and critical situations the authority is likely to encounter.
EPILOGUE
Wellington Jones, FCSA Engineer-Director, was extremely pleased with thepilot, noting how helpful it was for the younger members of each process teamwho learned why certain procedures were being used. One of the more valuableitems of tacit knowledge identified was the “triage” process that personnel wentthrough when an emergency call came in.
In fact, when Hurricane Isabel hit the Mid-Atlantic coast in September 2003, FCSAemployees were able to pull the knowledge maps for handling plant flooding toexpedite the process. It had been nearly 20 years since FCSA had last experienced a plant flooding event.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to thank Six Sigma black belt and process mapping facilitator DaveMarden for his help in conveying the process mapping concepts to the workteams, Doug Brinkman for his knowledge mapping facilitation, as well as theFrederick County Sanitation Authority personnel whose engagement andparticipation made the study a success – Hank Sliwinski, Tom Breedlove, DebbyCleghen, Greg Grim, Lynnwood Buracker, Rocky Stump, Richard Wood, and GlenBoireau.
Sumber :
Nama Kelompok:
Welly Pratama - 1501142812
Romi Fusianto - 1501143746
Hendra - 1501142384
KELAS : LB11
No comments:
Post a Comment