Electric Energy T&D - Index

Electric Energy T&D - EE Magazine March / April - Index

Utility Horizons TM
Whenever I make fundamental changes to
a word processor document – i.e., changes
that affect the basic structure; not just
content changes – and get ready to quit the
application, I sometimes get a message that
says, “Do you want to replace the existing
Normal?” This query refers to the template
that defines the style and format of the
document I’m currently working on and gives
me the opportunity to redefine those rules if
I wish to do so. That’s actually a pretty cool
feature, but I’m always a little apprehensive
about making an affirmative reply since that
means a lot of the familiar characteristics
of the document will disappear and cannot
be easily retrieved should I change my mind
later on.
Any time we’re faced with making permanent
changes like that I guess it’s always at least
a little bit scary. It’s usually that fear of the
unknown that intimidates us; the uncertainty
of what this ‘New Normal’ might foist upon
us that we didn’t anticipate when we agreed
to accept it. It seems to me that we’re facing
a similar dilemma with respect to the grid
and the pervasive changes that will need to
be made over the next many years if we are
to meet the challenge of creating a viable
1 st century Smart Grid. (See my interview
with ABB executives in this issue for details,
insights and discussion about Smart Grid.)
So, I thought it might be interesting to
consider some of the changes we might
be asked to accept for this New Normal to
become a reality. This is by no means an
exhaustive list, but rather a tickler to help
Replace Existing Normal?
kick-start the massive transition that will
be needed if a New Normal is to ever be
realized…
1. Budgeting (You show me yours and
I’ll show you mine.) As regular readers
know, I’ve written about the archaic
compartmentalized process that
most utilities still use for budgeting
automation/IT projects quite a bit in the
past, but for the benefit of those who
might be new on the scene (and there
are many, thanks to aging workforce
issues), I feel it bears repeating.
Specifically, the notion that projects in
the various dimensions of automation/
IT – whether it be GIS, CIS, SCADA,
Substation Automation AMR, Outage
and Work Management, or backbone
platform issues like communications and
databases – can be planned, specified
and procured on an annualized basis and
often in total isolation from one another,
is in my mind profoundly out of step
with today’s largely standardized and
increasingly interoperable automation/IT
environment. Yet most utilities continue
dogmatically down this same path year
after year. The good news is that we are
beginning to see some utilities breaking
away from that mold, albeit under duress.
With competition for budget dollars being
at an all-time crescendo, a lot of folks are
finding their budgets crashed by higher
priority – yet directly or indirectly related
– projects, most often AMI. So get used
to the idea of sharing your ideas and
plans with people in other departments.
You might think that what you do in
the GIS department doesn’t affect
other dimensions of the automation/IT
landscape but – let’s see, how can I say
this gently? Um, YOU’RE WRONG! It’s
I March-April 2008 Issue
By Michael A. Marullo, Contributing Editor
time to stop being so parochial and start
including your peers and counterparts in
your budgeting processes. This includes
formal meetings as well as those
discussions at the water cooler. Stop
thinking that your project is the universe
– it isn’t. And, no matter how much
money you’re spending (or not spending)
you WILL impact other automation/IT
projects – and THEY will impact YOU, so
start talking to each other!
. Supplier Relationships (Suppliers, Vendors
or Partners?) At the very beginnings of
my research and consulting career, I
had a special mentor who quickly railed
against anyone referring to system
companies as vendors. He maintained
that companies that sell commodities
are vendors; companies that provide
solutions are suppliers. Today, however,
I think we can take that to a new level.
Companies that consistently provide
solutions that work and upon which users
routinely rely for technological direction
and business guidance are partners.
As such, it is passé to perpetuate the
adversarial relationship that many users
(and some consultants) seem to think
is still the proper way to deal with the
very same companies that are arguably
among their most important strategic
relationships.
3. Financial Metrics (Price vs. Cost: The
definitions are different.) The budget
preparation process is certainly not
considered by most to be rocket science.
However, there is a subtlety that is
often lost in the process. That is, the
difference between Price (i.e., initial
purchase price) versus Cost, as in Total
Cost of Ownership or Life Cycle Costs.