The Last Frontier for the Digital Utility®

digital bull on the digital frontier

It seems to me that more and more utilities are seeking consultation on ‘going digital’. They want to ditch the paper. It doesn’t take a detective to figure out that construction and as-builting processes are the biggest culprits for generating paper. Through my research and consultative work, I’ve found that field work tends to have the highest prevalence of manual processes, creating the largest hurdle for utilities in achieving a digital workflow. The digitalization evangelists out there have plenty to preach about. From safety to data quality and timeliness to following new regulations, there are very good reasons to digitize construction and as-builting workflows.

However, going fully digital can be challenging and complex and is often never perfect, especially when it comes to managing an asset lifecycle process. In fact, few, if any utilities, have truly made the leap to become fully digital. Paper or extract, transform, and load (ETL) processes usually sneak in there somehow – and that’s okay. So, while it is possible to become ‘fully digital’, the real question is, “How digital does my workflow need to be?” While evangelizing for a fully digital workflow is great, this thinking often overlooks the fact that utilities may be locked into certain technology sets or workflows that prevent them from achieving the picture-perfect digital workflow.

So, instead of rushing to achieve the most digital workflow possible, my advice to utilities is to first focus on addressing the most significant as-builting workflow gaps for maximum ROI value, even if it means leaving parts of your process manual for the time being. Again, many of these ‘digital gaps’ are tied to mobile workflows (construction, as-builting, and even compliance) that have been baked into the design and construction process for decades and take time to change.

In this article, I’ll address three variations of digital as-builting and their impacts on utility asset lifecycles. Each variation is a choice, a method utilities can take in a stepwise approach to help achieve certain objectives. Each approach varies in degrees of influence over the efficacy of digitalization, the levels of data quality and accuracy, and the ways that GIS can be used to stream data.

The Digital Design Fabric

When I consult on the variations of digital as-builting, I often bring up a concept called the ‘Design Fabric’. The design fabric encompasses all informational elements of the work itself, as it lives within the design to construction workflow – from back-office design to the field and back. This can include many items such as the design sketch, work order metadata, construction details within a job packet, permits, bill of materials, etc. It’s an important concept because each piece of information has a chance to flow somewhere, to be ETL’d into another system, or more commonly, printed out somehow. It’s usually some sort of as-built reconciliation, the process of updating GIS assets to match their real-world counterparts, where changes to the design fabric happen. For example, construction materials or asset locations might vary from as-designed to as-built, and those changes need to be recorded.

While consulting on this topic, I put a lot of attention on the fabric makeup because the more intact a design fabric can stay together, the easier it is to digitize the content and reconciliation process. Plain and simple. To play on cheesy puns, an intact design fabric will weave a digital thread throughout the entire process, ensuring that assets are constructed according to the engineer’s specifications and that downstream operational systems and upstream accounting and customer service systems are fed current information. The structural integrity of the design fabric can be better preserved through incorporating digital processes into the as-built workflow, ensuring that the three main components – Compatible Units (CUs), Sketch, and Job Packet – stay intact. In contrast, a greater reliance on manual processes undermines that integrity.

The reality is that there is no true standard out there for managing all this metadata. And often, there are too many vendor types and formats to have a single perfectly digitized process. The priority should instead be on making the most of what we can digitize, with a focus on achieving the greatest ROI.

As-builting Frameworks

When approaching digital as-builting, utilities should focus on the highest priority items that offer the greatest ROI for their processes. This will help utilities achieve the level of digitalization that best aligns with their current operational requirements and goals, while leaving opportunities for introducing more digital elements into the future state workflow.

The following as-builting variations and related methods for as-built reconciliation progressively introduce more digitalization into the as-built workflow to address digital gaps. Prioritizing data completeness and quality should be the focus before introducing more digitalization into the workflow, as these are key to supporting modern network management capabilities. Once this becomes maintainable, utilities can begin to stitch a more binding design fabric throughout the workflow with elevated digitalization, increasingly enhancing data fidelity with each framework.

Framework 1: Basic Manual Reconciliation (Old School Paper)

The appeal of this base framework lies in its proven effectiveness for updating and maintaining construction workflows via paper. The immediate ‘pro’ to this approach is in its simplicity, especially for contractors. It’s no secret that utilities often hire contractors for their construction work. A paper-based process is simple for third parties to support and manage their data collection and data transfer between the field and the utility.

Using a printed sketch of the designed construction, the field crew documents any changes between the engineered design and what was actually constructed in the field through handwritten notes, also known as redlining. There are, of course, many variations to this. I’ve seen crews take screenshots of a digital design and effectively transform the design fabric into a static image, for example. While digital, and somewhat useful in digital storage, the limitations are the same.

The close-out process follows a similar protocol, either via paper or through a multitude of applications and manual data entry. Basically, once the paper markups are returned to the back office, technicians use either the static redlined paper sketch or the static digital PDF version to manually update the asset metadata (work location callouts), relationships, materials used, and spatial placements. In some cases, it may be necessary to completely redraw the design. A series of visual and automated tests are then performed in the back office to ensure close-out tasks are finalized and that all assets have been captured completely and are model-compliant. This back-office work can be conducted either by the utility, an outside firm, or a combination of both. Regardless of who performs the work, overhead will be required from the utility.

Design Fabric and Digital Asset Lifecycle Impacts

As mentioned, certain aspects of this workflow can be digital, but the manual processes of redlining and reconciling the asset inventory and supply chain completely unravel the digital thread and design fabric. Utilities must rely on the expertise of their field and back-office teams to ensure the fidelity of their data.

With little to no automation in a disconnected workflow, the utility’s network management as-operated view is limited and can become static, meaning it is not being updated in real time. This can have implications for other lines of business that rely on the timeliness of this data for critical downstream systems and energy delivery management.

Framework Advantages and Disadvantages

As-Builting Framework Advantages and Disadvantages

Framework 2: Digital Redlining with Geo-coincidence

This framework typically requires the use of three or more technologies in the field – one for viewing or digitizing the design sketch, one for accessing the design template or construction package, and one for entering the CU data for the constructed assets. The as-built redlines, which are geographically referenced on a map or geo-coincident, are used to reconcile the as-designed asset geometries and metadata. The reconciliation can occur through ‘truing up’ the data in the GIS or by reconciling the data back in the design tool and pushing it to the GIS. In either case, the materials and close-out actions are not linked to the assets’ location, geometries, or attributes, thus requiring manual reconciliation of the as-built data.

In this variation, it’s common to use pre-posting workflows, which push the as-designed assets into the GIS in a proposed, de-energized state. Pre-posting can help bridge the workflow gap as applications can pull proposed assets into other applications in a digital state. By posting assets at this stage in the construction process, downstream systems can start consuming the data before construction, which creates enterprise awareness. This approach accelerates the as-built reconciliation process since the redlines are geo-coincident, enabling a closer to real-time as-operating view.

Geoprocessing tools can be introduced in this framework to automate certain parts of the as-built process, such as reconciling the GIS with the redlines. The redlines can also be digitally archived in a designated feature data set for historical reference.

Design Fabric and Digital Asset Lifecycle Impacts

The addition of pre-posting to this framework begins to elevate the digital awareness and enterprise visibility of the design, resulting in a more intact, though frayed, design fabric as compared to the first framework. This advancement brings utilities closer to their goals of achieving near real-time data. However, while the as-built reconciliation methods can be digital in this framework, an intact design fabric can only be fully maintained when there is integration between the data sources.

Framework Advantages and Disadvantages

As-Builting Framework Advantages and Disadvantages

Framework 3: Integrated Digital As-built and Effective Partial Posting

In the pinnacle framework, the digital as-built is recorded when the materials and spatial as-builts are integrated as part of the seamless design fabric, rather than as separate layers or markups. The design fabric is either fully maintained throughout the as-built workflow in this framework or digitally reconstructed in the field, for example, by sketching with GPS (Track and Trace). Basically, the maps and CUs are inextricably linked within a digital application and workflow.

Digital redraws in the field may still occur in this framework, using the CUs, materials, or barcodes for reference. Although some aspects of the workflow may have regressed to paper, the process of re-digitizing in the field keeps the stitching of the digital thread intact from the back office to the field and back. At this stage, geoprocessing tools can be utilized to integrate the as-built field data into the GIS.

The advanced level of digitalization within this framework empowers utilities to implement partial posting practices. This work order processing approach supports large-scale construction projects by enabling utilities to post sections of the design to the GIS in an energized, as-built state. Parts of the design can be mapped iteratively rather than waiting months or longer for the final design to be constructed in the field. This capability allows field crews to access the design digitally, bringing the utility closer to achieving near real-time operational status of their assets.

Furthermore, this process enables full governance around material inventory, facilitating material reconciliation and true as-built conversions. It also provides automatic updates that feed both upstream and downstream systems, offering near real-time reconciliation between the proposed design and as-built construction.

I’ve also found that as organizations increase their levels of digitalization, they inherently experience an increase in investments and change management needs. As the as-built workflows become more digital, the amount of hardware and software in the field increases, which in turn requires additional training for foremen or inspectors to learn the new technology. Though the benefits significantly tip the scale, there is a price to digitalization, and that needs to be factored into the ROI.

Integrated As-built Model Example
Figure 1 Integrated As-built Model Example

Design Fabric and Digital Asset Lifecycle Impacts

While all three frameworks support improved inventory tracking and purchasing, the integrated workflow within the third framework provides the most significant savings for utilities by enabling more accurate material estimates to support supplier management, purchasing plans, and material price negotiations at the earliest stages.

A highly digital and automated workflow keeps the design fabric woven throughout the entire process, leading to more efficient workflows and improved asset management.

Framework Advantages and Disadvantages

As-Builting Framework Advantages and Disadvantages

Settling the Last Digital Frontier

Utilities becoming fully digital rests on whether they can implement an as-built workflow with enough digital elements so that the fibers of the design fabric remain interwoven throughout the process. Though this is the ideal framework, most utilities may need more time to get there due to siloed technologies and processes within their current as-built workflows. Additional digitalization should only be introduced into as-built workflows and reconciliation processes once utilities can ensure the completeness and quality of their data. For most, the focus should be on finding the right level of digitalization that helps bridge critical workflow gaps and maximizes the ROI value.

Only after solving the digital as-built puzzle can utility enterprises truly become digital in an end-to-end asset management lifecycle capacity.

Connect with Matt Zimmerman or contact UDC for more information on how you can maximize your digital investments on an enterprise level.

Matt Zimmerman headshot

2 years at UDC / 20 years in GIS

Matt Zimmerman

Matt has 20+ years of experience in Geospatial Utility Solutions, supporting utilities with managing their software and hardware. As VP of Systems Integration for UDC, Matt leads the firm’s GIS and Integration practice areas, leveraging his strong background in Design and Mobile applications.