1. Comparative Assessment of Service
Standards of Utilities Service Providers
in Water and Wastewater management
Abhishek Sarkar
10BM60004

2. Background
 Industries started being setup post independence
 Obsolete water supply/drainage system
 Post 1991, more industries hence more townships around
SEZs (EG: DMIC)
 Rising standards of living
 Govt of India realized need and many initiatives are being
taken:
 JNNURM
 PPP in infrastructure projects

3. Objective
 3 main types of players:
 Urban local bodies(municipalities)
 Township administrative division of industrial
townships
 Private Players providing township management
services
 Objective of this project:
 Assess service standards of the different parties
 Make a comparative analysis based on their
performance with regards to nationally accepted
Service level benchmarks

4. Service Level Benchmarks
 Water Supply
 Coverage of Water Supply Connections
100%
 Per Capita supply of water 135 lpcd
 Extent of metering of water connections
100%
 Extent of Non-Revenue Water (NRW) 20%
 Continuity of water supply 24 x 7
 Quality of water supplied
100%
 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints
80%
 Cost recovery in water supply services 100%
 Efficiency in collection of water supply related charges
90%

5. Service Level Benchmarks
 Sewerage services
 Coverage of Toilets 100%
 Coverage of sewage network services 100%
 Collection efficiency of sewage network 100%
 Adequacy of sewage treatment capacity 100%
 Quality of sewage treatment 100%
 Extent of reuse and recycling of sewage 20%
 Efficiency in redressal of customer complaints 80%
 Extent of cost recovery in sewage management 100%
 Efficiency in collection of sewage charges 90%

6. Key Performance Indicators for
Quality Of Service
 Measure of Employee Efficiency
 Customer accounts per employee
 MLD water delivered per employee
 Training Hours per Employee
 Customer Service Complaints
 Technical Quality Complaints
 Distribution system water loss
 Planned maintenance ratio
 Total O&M cost incurred per year per customer
account

7. Key Performance Indicators
Contd..
 Per capita supply of water
 Continuity of water supply
 Coverage of water supply connections
 Overall Performance Efficiency (OPE): This
indicator measures the overall performance efficiency
of the utility as a factor of Quality of Water
Provided, Loss of Water put into the Distribution
System and the Availability of Water Supply.
Quality Of Water (%) x [100%-NRW] (%) x Availability
 System renewal/replacement rate

8. Townships Surveyed
 Tatanagar (JUSCO)
 Bokaro Steel Plant
 Rourkela Steel Plant
 Durgapur Steel Plant
 Kharagpur municipality
 Midnapore municipality

9. How they fared (Water supply)
Name of the Benchmark JUSCO
Indicator
Coverage 100% 86.98%
Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 232 lpcd
Extent of 100 % 32.96%
metering
Non revenue 20% 9.56%
water
Continuity 24*7 24*7
Quality of water 100% 100%
Customer 80% 98.35%
complaint
redressal
Cost recovery 100% 100%

10. How they fared (Water supply)
Name of the Benchmark Bokaro Steel
Indicator plant
Coverage 100% 100%
Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 253.6lpcd
Extent of 100 % 0%
metering
Non revenue 20% NA
water
Continuity 24*7 6 hrs a day
Quality of water 100% 100%
Customer 80% 100%
complaint
redressal
Cost recovery 100% 0

11. How they fared (Water supply)
Name of the Benchmark Rourkela Steel
Indicator Plant
Coverage 100% 100%
Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 225 lpcd
Extent of 100 % 0%
metering
Non revenue 20% NA
water
Continuity 24*7 4 hrs a day
Quality of water 100% 100%
Customer 80% 90%
complaint
redressal
Cost recovery 100% 0

12. How they fared (Water supply)
Name of the Benchmark DSP
Indicator
Coverage 100% 100%
Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 272 lpcd
Extent of 100 % 0%
metering
Non revenue 20% NA
water
Continuity 24*7 8 hrs
Quality of water 100% 100%
Customer 80% 75 %
complaint
redressal
Cost recovery 100% 0%

13. How they fared (Water supply)
Name of the Benchmark KGP
Indicator Municipality
Coverage 100% 26.94%
Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 17.6 lpcd
Extent of 100 % 0%
metering
Non revenue 20% NA
water
Continuity 24*7 2 hrs
Quality of water 100% 100%
Customer 80% Not divulged
complaint
redressal
Cost recovery 100% Not divulged

14. How they fared (Water supply)
Name of the Benchmark Midnapore
Indicator
Coverage 100% 21.82%
Per Capita supply 135 lpcd 29.65 lpcd
Extent of 100 % 0%
metering
Non revenue 20% NA
water
Continuity 24*7 2hrs
Quality of water 100% 100%
Customer 80% Not divulged
complaint
redressal
Cost recovery 100% 0%

15. How they fared (Sewerage)
Name of the Benchmark JUSCO
Indicator
Coverage of toilet 100% 0
Coverage of 100% 75%
sewage network
services
Collection 100 % 75%
efficiency
Quality of 100% 100%
treatment
Extent of 20% 30%
recycling
Customer 80% 99.8%
complaint
redressal
Cost recovery 100% 0%

16. How they fared (Sewerage)
Name of the Benchmark KGP
Indicator municipality
Coverage of toilet 100% 0
Coverage of 100% NA
sewage network
services
Collection 100 % NA
efficiency
Quality of 100% NA
treatment
Extent of 20% NA
recycling
Customer 80% NA
complaint
redressal
Cost recovery 100% NA

17. Comparative assessment on
KPIs
Training Hours per employee

18. Comparative assessment on
KPIs
Customer accounts per employee
350
300
250
200
Customer accounts per employee
150
100
50
0
JUSCO BOKARO Rourkela Durgapur Kharagpur Midnapore

19. Comparative assessment on
KPIs
Distribution system water loss
35
30
25
20
15
Distribution system water loss
10
5
0

20. Comparative assessment on
KPIs
Planned maintenance ratio
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Planned maintenance ratio
0.3
0.2
0.1
0

21. Comparative assessment on
KPIs
Continuity Of water supply

22. Comparative assessment on
KPIs
Overall performance efficiency
90
80
70
60
50
40 Overall performance efficiency
30
20
10
0
JUSCO BOKARO Rourkela Durgapur Kharagpur Midnapore

23. Analysis of findings
 Customer accounts handling load inefficiency issues
in KGP & Midnapore
 Difference in training of employees of the different
bodies
 Per capita supply of water in KGP & Midnapore is not
at all adequate
 Very low distribution system water loss leads to high
efficiency in JUSCO’s operations
 Planned maintenance ratio shows lack of adequate
planning for ULBs
 Continuity of water supply is a big issue for all entities
other than JUSCO
 High OPE value for JUSCO makes it a clear winner
with regards to water supply services over its
competition

24. Suggestions
 Arrange for proper training of employees for
increased customer service quality.
 Setting up proper sewerage and sewage
treatment facilities for the sake of hygiene.
 Timely maintenance and renewal of water supply
equipments to be followed to minimize distribution
system water loss
 A public private model should be adopted
 Remedy for budgetary constraints
 Better efficiency in operations
 Central regulation to avoid over commercialization
practices

25. References
 Center, N. I. (n.d.). Ministry of urban Development, GOvernment
of India. Retrieved September 2011, from http://urbanindia.nic.in/
 Perez, B. (2008). INDICATORS FOR PERFORMANCE
BENCHMARKING OF WATER UTILITIES.
 PWC. (2011). Report on Indian Urban Infrastructure and
Services. HPEC.