trouble dispatching – large outage management - improving customer outage restoration performance

Trouble Dispatching – Large Outage Management

Improving Customer Outage Restoration Performance

2

Step 1: Project Identification

• Historical CAIDI (Customer Average Interruption Duration Index) Performance:

Customer Average Interruption Duration

233

256276

263

216

244

206

243235

150175200225250275300

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Min

utes

4th quartileCustomer Average Interruption Duration

233

256276

263

216

244

206

243235

150175200225250275300

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Min

utes

3

Step 2: Team Formation

Primary Gate 1 Team Members:• Steve Dahlmann, Regional System Supervisor• Todd Sankiewicz, ROC Manager (now SOC manager)• Susan Putrycus, co-project lead• Ryan Stowe, co-project lead• Paul Whitman, Manager Restoration Optimization

Primary Gate 2 Team Members:• Ryan Stowe, co-project lead• Kathi Krupinski, co-project lead• Paul Whitman, Manager Restoration Optimization

Pontiac / NROC Learning Line• Mike Chriss (SC Mgr)• Leo Batchelor (GS)• Tobin Fox (Field Supv)• Ralph Heimke (Field Supv)• Mike Benedict (17)• Tom Alexander (RSS)• Bob Barrette (ROC Mgr)• Steve Dahlmann (RSS)• Shalom Joseph (RSO CI)• Sandeev Sarna (RSS)

Western Wayne / SROC Learning Line• Kathi Krupinski (SC Mgr)• Sylvain Castognway (Field Supv)• Jim Wallace (223-UG)• Bob Danneels (223/CI/OSSG)• Kevin Rice (Supv-DO Process)• Alex Brown (RSS Sr)• Arlene Agy (ROC Mgr)• George McNamara (RSS Sr)

Other Workshop Participants• Nan Forris (SC Mgr)• Rich Mack (RSO CI)• LaMont Seals (RI)• Tim Whitesall (cust service)

4

Step 3: Current State AnalysisDispatch Data

Dispatch Time HistogramJune-July 2004

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

1,400

30

60

90

12

0

15

0

18

0

21

0

24

0

27

0

30

0

33

0

36

0

> 3

60

Dispatch Time Buckets (min)

Ev

en

t F

req

ue

nc

y

Median - 85 Mean - 192

5

Step 3: Current State AnalysisDispatch Data

Customer Average Dispatch Time

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

As Shown inSPME

After Audit of 100Events

Min

ute

s

Dispatch time dropped35 minutes by auditing3% of the events

6

Step 3: Current State AnalysisRestoration Data

CAIDI for Jun-Jul 2004 (excludes storms)

200

210

220

230

240

250

260

CAIDI Before Audit

CAIDI After Audit

Min

ute

s

Because of the magnitude of error found in the dispatch time data, a deep dive analysis on restoration data was conducted.

CAIDI dropped by 15 minutes by auditing 5% of the events

7

Step 3: Current State AnalysisLarge Outage – CAIDI Relationship

193.3

4.5

386.0

25.0

75.6

43.131.4

13.1

All Events 1000 + 501 - 1000 201 - 500 101 - 200 26 - 100 2 - 25 1

17,884 447 407 475 590 1,953 3,166 10,814

1,643,514 938,755 318,198 153,398 84,377 100,993 36,979 10,814

Event Count

Customers Affected

233 206 237 281 296 311 355 419CAIDI

Event Size (customers)

• 80% of the Customer-Minutes are caused by 7% of the events

• Improving these events by 10% would reduce the overall CAIDI by 19 minutes to 214

Customer Minutes

(Millions)

• 60% of the events are 1 customer outs.

• Reducing CAIDI for these 10,814 events to 180 min, would drop overall CAIDI by only 1 minute to 232

8

Step 3: Current State Analysis

The Trouble Dispatch project was broken into two projects: Large Outage Management project, and Data Integrity – Audit Process

Restore Customers in 3 Hours or less

Time to Repair

Y = f ( X1 , X 2 X 3 )

Y = f ( X4 , X5 , X6 , X7 )

Time to Dispatch

Resource Availability

ORC / Dispatcher

skill set

Y = f ( X8 , X9 , X10 )

Large Outage Mgmt

152 CAIDI = 233 66 15= + +

Project Focus

15 min CAIDI Improvement

Target

Lead: Susan Putrycus

Resource Availability

Crew Allocation

Crew Alignment

Event Management

Y = f ( X11 , X12 , X13 )

Data Accuracy

Error Proofing InService

Audit Process

Crew Utilization

Project Focus

15 min CAIDI Improvement

Target

Lead: Ryan Stowe

Visual Management

Time to Dispatch

Data Accuracy

9

Step 4: Define Ideal State

200 - 1000 1000 +

Send Supervisor Send Supervisor LS LS

A B B If indication of Station

Lockout, send Operator

If indication of Station Lockout, send Operator

B (and SS if available) B (and SS if available)B Call in LS

Call in Supervisor

LS (and SS if available) LS (and SS if available)B Call in B Call in B

Call in Supervisor

If B crew on-call, bring in B

C Call in Supervisor

Bring in On-Call and additional crew to make a B and LS

Crews / Personnel on site (typical M-F Day, or shift with multiple crews on site)

B Crew on Shift (no LS on site)

Notify Supervisor (supervisor discretion to come in)

No Crews on site

Notify Supervisor (supervisor discretion to come in)

If LS on-call, bring in LS and also call in a BNotify Supervisor (supervisor discretion to come in)

LS on Shift (no B crew on site)

• Developed Large Outage Dispatch Guidelines

– The guidelines focus on getting the right personnel to the event at the start, rather than waiting to see which resources may be needed.

– Driving accountability and performance by getting field supervisors out to the events from the beginning.

Number of Customers Out

10

Step 5: Identify Gaps & Countermeasures

Process StepKey Process

InputPotential Failure Mode

Potential Failure Effects

SEV

Potential CausesOCC

Current ControlsDET

RPN

Actions Recommended

Event Dispatching

Field Crew Availability

Lack of crews to dispatch event to

Increased dispatch time & outage duration

5No crews scheduled to work in field

9 Shift schedules 7 315

ST - dispatch guidelines, LT - Analyze trouble resource allocation

Field restorationField crews, field supervision

Crews not working optimally

Increased outage duration, higher expense

7Lack of field supervision presence, especially on off shifts

7Feedback through OT monitoring, ROC monitoring

6 294Increase field supervisor presence, utilize Lg outage disp guidelines

Event Dispatching

Outage data, ORC/RSS

ROC personnel (ORC, RSS) not aware of large outage event

Increased dispatch time & outage duration

5Periods of high workload, multiple priorities, lack of a centralized notification process

5Individual InService installations

6 150

ROC Visual mgmt project - install central displays to notify/track large otuage events

Event Dispatching

Field Crew Availability

Not utilizing ST crews in adjacent service territories

Increased outage duration, higher expense

5Poor communication between ORC's

3 None 6 90Include in the Lg Outage Disp guideline SWI's

Field restoration Field CrewsOptimal restore before repair opportunities not captured

Increased outage duration

5

Field crews making decisions on less than complete information. Poor communication between ROC and field crew

3Large Outage / Long restoration AAR's

6 90Send field supervisor to as many large outage events as possible

Trouble Analysis InService dataEvent rolls-up to the wrong point

More customers reported out than actual

1Customers not assigned to the correct device

7 CARS, audit process 5 35

Data EntryPartial Restorations

Partial restorations not captured properly in InService

Increase to reported outage duration

1 Data entry errors 7 Audit process 3 21

Inservice data accuracy report project (J Koenders), Data Audit Project (S Putrycus)

Utilized an FMEA (Failure Modes Effects Analysis) to identify gaps to ideal state and ensure that countermeasures were developed to address them.

11

Step 6: Create Master Plan for Implementing

Week Ending DateTask DurationStatus 3/13 3/20 3/27 4/3 4/10 4/17 4/24 5/1 5/8 5/15 5/22 5/29 6/5 6/12 6/19 6/26 7/3 7/10 7/17 7/24 7/31 8/7 8/14 8/21 8/28

Ideal State Workshop 2 wks CompleteCost / Benefit Estimate 1 wk CompleteGate 2 Approval 1 day CompletePresent to RSO Mgrs 1 day CompleteDevelop ORC SWI 2 wks CompleteDevelop ORC Job Aid 1 wk CompletePresent to ROC's 1 wk CompleteSC email communication 1 day CompleteBegin Utilizing Dispatch Guidelines 1 day CompleteNROC AAR 3 wks CompleteSROC AAR 1 wk CompleteFinalize Data Audit Process 2 wks In ProgressDevelop Data Audit SWI 2 wks In ProgressJoint AAR 1 dayGate 3 1 dayComplete Sustainability Plan 1 wkGate 4 1 day

12

Step 7: Test, Refine, & Implement

• Conducted After Action Reviews with North ROC and South ROC (trouble dispatching and operating centers)

• Focus was on reviewing of specific events where the guidelines were and were not used as designed.

• Developed a report outline for dispatch guideline compliance and effectiveness

13

Step 7: Test, Refine, & ImplementCurrent Status

Expect year end CAIDI to be under the year end target of 195 min

CAIDI YTD 2004 vs 2005

100120140160180200220240260

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun

CA

IDI

(min

)

2004 2005

79 min

14

t-Test: Two-Sample Assuming Equal VariancesRestoration time for large outages

2004 2005Mean 235.3 159.7Variance 61,758.6 22,524.6 Observations 457 310Pooled Variance 45911.1Hypothesized Mean Difference 0df 765t Stat 4.80P(T<=t) one-tail 9.721E-07t Critical one-tail 1.647E+00P(T<=t) two-tail 1.944E-06t Critical two-tail 1.963E+00

2005 large outage CAIDI performance is statistically different than 2004. . . About a 1 in 1,000,000 chance that the change is due to random variation

Step 7: Test, Refine, & ImplementCurrent Status

15

Overall Restoration Performance

• CAIDI performance this year has significantly improved and should finish the year below Distribution Operation’s target of 195 minutes.

Customer Average Interruption Duration

235 243

206

244216

263 276256

233

170

150175200225250275300

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Min

ute

s

Low Income Customer Agency Website Project

17

Problem Statement

There has been an increasing number of Michigan residents to seeking energy payment assistance.

During 2004, Credit & Collection received 113,000 contacts from Human Service agencies. This rose to over 11,000/mo in 2005.

The volume of agency contacts has challenged our ability to timely respond and has caused agency and customer dissatisfaction.

The current process reduces opportunities for employees to collect on low income arrearages.

Identify Scope Form Team Current RealityIdentify Scope Form Team Current Reality Ideal State Identify Gaps Master Plan Implement Measure Acknowledge Team

18

Project Goal

The goals of this project are:

1) Provide a channel for authorized human service organizations to electronically obtain required DTE Energy customer data for the purpose of determining payment assistance eligibility 2) Optimize employee resources to increase low income collection


19

Voice of the Customer

Current process is manual and reactive.

DTE Energy’s response time in providing the requested information is sometimes slow and creates backlog.

Information provided is not always consistent.

Increasing volume of agency contacts decreases outbound collection activity.

DTE Energy is paying employees for collection skills that are not fully utilized.

Collection from low income customers need to increase.


External

Internal

20

Team Members & Role

Champion: Jeff Moran

Process Owner: Cheryl Tramble

Key Stakeholder: Credit & Collection

Team Lead: Vent Micou

Core Team Members: Keith Abbott (IT Project Lead), Sylvia Sartin

(Supervisor), Sue Skokos (IT Business Analyst),

Cheryl Tramble (Process Owner)

Support Team Members: K. Chandrasekharan, B. Maruthavanan,

V. Chenepalli, U. Poduturu, L. Gjernes

Black Belt Mentor: Wally Martinez

Financial Analyst: Kevin O’Brien

Identify Scope Form Team Current RealityIdentify Scope Ideal State Identify Gaps Master Plan Implement Measure Acknowledge Team

21

Current Process

Receive Information

Request

ImplementAccount actions/

Update CSB

Received andPost Payment

Make PaymentArrangements

Research andCommunicate

Information

Input Responding to Agency

Contacts

Output

(i.e., DHS, THAW, Salvation Army, etc.)

Human Service Agencies

DTE

Low Income Customer

Human Service

Agencies

• Low Income Funding Requests

• Agency Inquiries

• Collection Holds• Service Restores• Notes on Accounts• Payment Commitments• Agency Payments


SIPOC

22

Waste Walk


Safety Issues: None

*Types of waste: over production, over processing, transportation, motion, waiting, inventory, correction of defects

Defects (Rework)

Because low income customers seek payment assistance from multiple sources, inquiries are received and responded to from various agencies on behalf of the same customers.

With a single primary printer, employees spend needlesstime waiting and/or sorting for their prints and faxes.

Notes(Comments, issues, solution suggestions to consider)

Type of Waste*Waste

Area: Low Income Program Support Observer: Vent Micou

Date: April, 2005

Waste Observation Form

Employees often print out copies of agencies THAW pre-screens, internet, and emailed requests to work from. Over Processing

Waiting

MotionEmployees frequently are away from their desks, walking to and from the copier, fax, or printer.

23

Project Scope


Y = f( X1 X2 X3

Timely Response To Agencies for

Customer Information

Incomplete/InaccurateInfo from agencies

Type of Inquiries(i.e., general ordispute related)

EmployeeAvailability

System(s)Availability(i.e., CSB, CTV)

ManualProcess

Receivecalls, faxes

emails

ResearchInformation

Conveying information

CopyingCSB/Thaw

screens

EquipmentBreakdowns(i.e., fax, etc.)

ManualProcess

Y = f( X1 X2 X3 X4 )

X4 X5 X6 )

24

Metric


Inbound Agency ContactsJan 2004 through April 2005

8,9349,602

10,669

15,841

10,608

8,2147,500

12,97311,940

10,069

7,559 7,878

10,73910,98210,030

7,748

-

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

Jan-04

Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-05

Feb Mar Apr

Average > 10,000Calls per Month

25

Metric


Low Income $ Collected per monthAug 2004 through April 2005

$-

$20,000.00

$40,000.00

$60,000.00

$80,000.00

$100,000.00

$120,000.00

Aug-04 Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan-05 Feb Mar Apr

Average > $76,000Collected per month

26

Ideal StateAgency

– Internet Accessibility

– 24/7 Availability

– Improve Efficiency

– Accurate/Consistent Data

DTE Energy

– Resource Optimization

– Reduction in Arrears

– Waste Reduction

– Increased Agency/Customer Satisfaction


27

Benchmarking

Benchmarked three utility companies that use an agency assistance website:

First Energy Co. (Ohio) TUX Energy (Texas) Constellation Energy (Baltimore)

Current RealityIdentify Scope Form Team Identify Gaps Master Plan Implement Measure Acknowledge TeamIdeal State

28

DTE Energy’s Low Income Support Ideal Process Map for In-bound Agency Inquiries

ROLES

Age

nci

es

Cus

tom

er

DT

E’s

Low

In

com

eS

upp

ort

Te

am

End

RequestAssistance

Access Online Resource for Agencies (ORA) forInquiries, Payment Commit-ments and Collection Holds

DTE Energy iscontacted on anexception basisand providesinformation

InformationAvailable?

Yes

No

Determinationmade for

commitment

Commitmentmade?

Yes

No

Automatic 30-daycoll. hold

Account noted in ORA and systemcopied to CSB

Customer maybe put on abudget plan

Ideal State Process MapC

SB


29

Project Savings Opportunity

Reducing Arrears

• In 2006 the projected additional arrears reduction is conservatively estimated at $600,000 ($50,000 x 12 months).

O & M

• Reducing inbound contacts from external agencies by 75 - 80% will allow Low Income Program Support employees (17) to focus on low income residential customer collection activities.


30

Process Gaps and Countermeasures

Multiple agency contacts occur for same customers. Not all agency inquiries result in payment commitments.

Once commitment is made, collection holds are manually entered by Special Handling, C&C.

Customer data requirements varies between agencies.

Gap

Online Resource for Agency (ORA) will allow agencies to obtain required information themselves and result in quicker commitment decisions. Design web site to show if another agency has inquired or made a commitment on an account.

Enable ORA to automatically generate collection holds in DTE Energy system(s) when agencies enter payment commitments.

Met with agencies to establish customer data standards.

Countermeasure

Identify Scope Form Team Master Plan Implement Measure Acknowledge TeamIdentify GapsIdeal StateCurrent Reality

31

Master Plan

2005 DTE Energy Agencies

March

Begin Feature Prioritization for Phase 1 Facilitate Agency Mtg Participate in Introductory Mtg

April & May Develop and Test Phase 1 Finalize Training Plan

June

Phase 1 Operational Finalize Training Plan Conduct Training

Participate in Phase 1 Pilot Training

JulyBegin Feature Prioritization for Phase 2 Pilot Phase 1 for up to 90 days

August Develop and Test Phase 2 Evaluate Phase 1 Pilot

September

Phase 2 Operational Update Training Plan Conduct Training

Full Implementation Phase 1 Participate in Training Ph. 1&2

October Full Implementation of Phase 2

Identify Scope Form Team Implement Measure Acknowledge TeamIdeal StateCurrent Reality Master PlanIdentify Gaps

32

Results


$-$100,000.00$200,000.00$300,000.00$400,000.00$500,000.00$600,000.00$700,000.00$800,000.00$900,000.00

$1,000,000.00

7/4/20

04

9/4/20

04

11/4/

2004

1/4/20

053/4

/2005

5/4/20

05

7/4/20

05

9/4/20

05

11/4/

2005

1/4/20

06

3/4/20

06

5/4/20

06

7/4/20

06

9/4/20

06

11/4/

2006

• Between Nov. 2005 – Dec. 06, theLow Income Program Support Team (LIPS)collected $8,185,195 from customers compared to $2,672,191 for the sameperiod (Nov 04 – Dec 05) a year ago.

• Today, 14 employees from LIPS make outbound collection calls compared to3.5 employees prior to ORA.

$ Collected by Reallocated (LIPS) Employees

33

Results


Human Service Agency Contacts(Calls and Emails)

-

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Yr-2004

Yr-2005

Yr-2006

34

Results


0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

1/1/20

05

2/1/20

05

3/1/20

05

4/1/20

05

5/1/20

05

6/1/20

05

7/1/20

05

8/1/20

05

9/1/20

05

10/1/

2005

11/1/

2005

12/1/

2005

1/1/20

06

2/1/20

06

3/1/20

06

4/1/20

06

5/1/20

06

Agency Calls THAW Prescreens Email and Faxes ORA contacts

• In February and March, 2006,ORA exceeded target with 84% and82% of agency contacts respectively.

• In April, 2006, agency calls and emailsfrom the Dept. of Human Servicesincreased. The reasons were analyzedand two enhancements requests weresubmitted to IT.

Note: ORA Target: 80% of agency monthly contacts

Agency Contacts by TypeJanuary, 2005 – May, 2006

35

Acknowledgements

Several agencies including THAW, Michigan Dept. of Human Service, and Barrier Busters of Ann Arbor have expressed appreciation to DTE Energy making ORA available to them.


trouble dispatching – large outage management - improving customer outage restoration performance

Education

project focus

trouble dispatch project

large outage caidi performance

dispatch time data

current process

overall caidi

caidi improvement target

current status