Enhanced Positive Response Pilot. Montgomery County Maryland March - June 2014

Transcription

1 Enhanced Positive Response Pilot Montgomery County Maryland March - June 2014

2 Intro to Enhanced Positive Response (EPR) Damage prevention is an ongoing journey Requires ongoing commitment and focus Results shown via AGA annual survey Next evolution of Damage Prevention is EPR Pilot completed in Maryland with excellent results

3 Who was involved?

4 Why Did We Do This Pilot? We as facility owners wanted to learn if providing excavators access to digital technologies (tickets, photos, facility maps and electronic manifests) would make the job safer, more efficient and reduce system wide damages. To test the relative value of the four EPR components provided as part of the pilot. To prototype a technology infrastructure using the call center as the information hub

5 EPR Information Flow Current Process Today Notification of Excavation Miss Utility Maryland Enhanced Positive Response Locate Requests to Utiliquest Utiliquest Locate Operation Locate Manifest & Photos Miss Utility Maryland Excavator Search and Status In addition to positive response codes - Call Center receives Ticket, Virtual Manifest, Photos and Facility Maps

6 What is an EPR? Facility Maps Virtual Manifest Photographs Ticket Data

7 Pilot Scope Period: April 7 - June 6, 2014 Location: Montgomery County, MD Tickets called in by Lamberts, NPL and R.B. Hinkle Tickets assigned to UtiliQuest Excavators & Facility Auditors completed Surveys Data analyzed and available

8 Pilot Summary 10,207 Tickets in pilot area containing EPR data 10,564 Virtual Manifests 27,522 Photographs 50,124 Facility maps (plats) 1,034 surveys completed 906 excavator surveys 128 utility employee surveys

9 Quotes From EPR Participants NPL saw tremendous value in the Enhanced Positive Response Pilot, and we would like to see this become a standard part of the process. ~ NPL Enhanced Positive Response improved our crew planning and made us more efficient. ~ Lamberts This pilot program is an example of utilization of both technology and relationships to collaboratively reduce damages. ~ Washington Gas This enhanced ticket response is going to pave the way for how our future will look and will be credited with significantly reducing damages. ~ Chairman of the MD DC Subscribers Committee

10 Timeline EPR Committee is created, value & pilot goals identified Technical Requirements implemented, Disclaimer created, finalize pilot goals Survey Form and EPR Doc Training, Communications begin GO LIVE COMPLETE Data Collection & QC Process January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014

11 Survey Stats Pilot ran for 9 weeks from 4-07 to 6-06 Total of 1034 surveys Excavator surveys from NPL, Lamberts and RB Hinkle Facility owner surveys (field auditors) from WGL and Verizon

12 What we learned about EPR Every component of the EPR package provided value The jobsite was safer The efficiency of excavator work was improved Job site communications were improved CGA mission: Making the job site safer proved to be a prominent outcome of EPR

13 What we learned about digital info Using the call center as the hub appears to be an efficient way of distributing digital information EPR enabled better info flow even within the same company With digital survey technology we can collect quality information like unsatisfactory locates or near misses Digital information raises the overall level of quality in underground locating

14 Considerations for Full Rollout Need to consider limiting information access to applicable target audiences including expiration Layering of data may be important Will need End User Agreement covering proper use of EPR Full Scale Roll Out Will Require Additional Infrastructure

15 What was on the Survey? The feedback form had questions in both English and Spanish: Complete the job faster or more efficiently? Make the job safer? Prevent a damage on the job? The ticket? The facility maps? The electronic sketch? The photos? Scoring System 1 & 2 = No 3 = Neutral 4 & 5 = Yes

16 Jobsite Safety Enhanced positive response definitely made the job site safer. ~ Washington Gas 93% of Excavators and 88% of Facility Owners thought EPR made the jobsite safer

17 Damage Prevention 93% of Excavators and 72% of Facility Owners thought EPR improved damage prevention

18 Job Efficiency 92% of Excavators and 55% of Facility Owners thought EPR improved job efficiency

19 Ticket Data 95% of Excavators and 73% of Facility Owners found ticket data of value

20 Facility Maps 90% of Excavators and 66% of Facility Owners found facility maps of value

21 Virtual Manifest 87% of Excavators and 73% of Facility Owners found the virtual manifest to be valuable

22 Photos 87% of Excavators and 71% of Facility Owners found photos valuable

23 Locate Quality Feedback The enhanced communication between stakeholders raised the level of quality throughout the process. ~ UtiliQuest 1.74% of Surveys submitted showed an unsatisfactory Locate score.

24 Damages per 1000 Locates Jan-Mar Pilot Period Period Inc/Dec% % % YR/YR Inc/Dec. % 29% -67%

25 Next Steps EPR Pilot Committee comes back together to discuss what was learned and where to go next Value in continuing broad involvement across the committee including locators, facility owners, and one call centers

26 Contact Information Scott Brown - scottbrown@washgas.com Terry Fordham - terry.fordham@utiliquest.com Dave Crawford - dave.crawford@certusview.com Randy Peterson - randy@occinc.com