INSIGHT
Knowledge Retention
Are You Ready for the Impending Brain Drain?

Linda Blankenship, P.E., BCEE Principal Consultant with a focus on Knowledge Retention and Utility Management issues

It isn’t difficult to know if your organization is at risk of losing valuable knowledge in the near future. All you have to do is look around. “If everyone either has gray hair or no hair, you’ve got a problem,” said Jerry Landon, who leads the Tennessee Valley Authority’s (TVA) Knowledge Retention efforts. “When your subject expert has bought the bass boat and the RV and he can tell you how many days he has left until retirement, it’s almost too late.”

Of course, that describes most public utilities. That’s why utility industry leaders are benchmarking TVA’s approach to Knowledge Management. With 12,600 employees serving seven states, TVA is the nation’s largest public power company. Founded by Congress in 1933, the Authority operates and maintains 11 coal-fired plants, 29 hydroelectric dams, three nuclear plants, four combustion-turbine plants, a pumped storage facility, and 17,000 miles of transmission lines.

Like most public sector enterprises, TVA is facing mass retirements in the near future. “I don’t know that I could make the argument that our demographics were any worse than any other utility,” Landon said. What TVA has done, however, is stopped just talking about the problem and begun addressing it.

What Knowledge Is Being Lost?

Much of the utility’s key operational knowledge resides between the ears of long-time employees. By 2011, some 30-40 percent of their workforce will retire but TVA is preparing now for this ‘brain drain.’ Since 1999, TVA has developed and refined a simple process to identify at-risk knowledge, assess the risk, and mitigate the impact of critical knowledge loss. The process was implemented enterprise-wide in 2003. Supported by a variety of tools, it enables line managers to answer the important questions:

• What knowledge is being lost?
• What are the business consequences?
• What can we do about it?

The process begins when managers identify – by name – every person in their area who might have critical, undocumented knowledge. The next step is to interview employees and supervisors to discover the specific ‘knowledge content’ involved. This might include knowledge or skills relating to equipment, tasks, trouble shooting, lessons learned, and insights into potential failures and how to fix them. Typically, these lengthy lists can be boiled down to a few critical items.

“Many times the individual can tell us who the other ‘experts’ are at TVA who have the same knowledge they do,” Landon said. “People have their cheat sheets. They have their problem-solving flow charts. The thing is, nobody has ever encouraged them to share these tools.”

What Can We Do About It?

Once key knowledge is identified, a practical plan is developed for retention and transfer. It could include employee shadowing and the documentation of procedures and processes. It might involve using an expert at another plant or division. It may mean replacing old equipment before the knowledge to operate and maintain it is lost.

“I don’t think there is anything that we’ve done that is earth-shattering,” Landon said. “We just provided some degree of systematic approach. We just waded in and got started.”

Landon, EMA, and subject experts are now involved in an Awwa Research Foundation (AwwaRF) project aimed at adapting the best Knowledge Management tools – including those used by TVA – for the drinking water industry. The AwwaRF project will develop three to five of the most promising strategies, tools, and techniques used by TVA, other utilities, and other industries for knowledge retention and reuse in the drinking water industry. The project will help utilities capture critical knowledge to ensure they can provide efficient and effective customer service, reduce time to competence of new employees, and maintain public confidence.

“What managers really want to do is to clone people,” Landon said. “Obviously, that’s not an option. What we can do is identify what the options are to keep the most critical knowledge from walking out the door.”

BACK TO TOP

FORESIGHT
security preparedness
The Truth is Scarier than Fiction

Tim Payne Senior Consultant specializing in security preparedness

Imagine a virus so deadly that it shuts down the global economy and kills 200 million people. Supermarket shelves stand empty. Freeways are devoid of traffic. Health care workers refuse to report for duty. And everyone in the local community is desperate for public services. Sounds like science fiction.

Unfortunately, the truth of pandemic flu is far scarier than fiction. Influenza experts are increasingly worried that the next pandemic – perhaps stemming from Bird Flu – could rival the 1918 Spanish Flu that killed 100 million worldwide. The City of Seattle, King County, and Seattle Public Utilities (SPU) are taking the threat very seriously and response planning started in 2005. SPU is preparing for a doomsday scenario that includes:

• Extremely limited vaccine availability
• An overwhelmed healthcare system
• Schools, day care centers, libraries, theaters, and stadiums all closed
• Zero external mutual aid available

“In emergency planning, you look at all of the possible eventualities and you come up with a plan that works,” explained Ned Worcester, SPU Emergency Management Officer. “Pandemic flu is forcing a little more real-world view of things.”

Dr. Michael Osterholm, who leads the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy in Minneapolis – see Q&A on page 4 – has been beating the public preparedness drum for 10 years. His warnings first sounded in scientific journals and at academic conferences. Today, he appears on CNN, Oprah, and Nightline, and at the White House.

“I think we are beginning to see more private citizens taking it seriously and really moving forward – either stockpiling at home or asking local governments what they are doing about it,” Osterholm said. “We need to have this discussion. There are no easy answers. There are no perfect solutions.”

Preparing For Mass Absenteeism

SPU’s preparations are part of a City-wide effort that includes planning for decision-making protocols, surveillance and disease monitoring systems, plans for continuity of government and business, and protocols for social distancing. Public education and outreach campaigns are underway. Absenteeism could reach 30-40 percent of the American workforce during a pandemic while demand for public service surges. Supplies may be limited and the reliability of power, water, communications, and transportation could be severely impacted.

“Some departments have only planned for the workplace. Others, like the Fire Department, have planned for employees who are caring for family members at home,” Worcester explained. “They’re trying to reduce the risk of exposure at home so there is a better chance that employees will remain healthy and be able to come to work.”

SPU is identifying key functions, cross training staff, and reviewing policies on telecommuting, sick leave, and flex shifts. New ways to track absenteeism are being developed along with templates for region-wide situation reporting. Staff are being trained on the realities and risks, how to protect themselves from exposure, and social distancing behaviors.

One of the most difficult tasks is getting people to grasp the enormity of it all. How has SPU done that? “I’m not sure I have a good answer for that because I’m not sure people really do have a grasp on how big this will be,” Worcester admits. “We’re going to have to do some role playing, some tabletop exercises – that sort of thing – to really address how we are going to fulfill the basic functions. I don’t know if anyone can adequately plan for all of the external issues we are likely to face. ”

While it is impossible to prepare for every eventuality, Osterholm believes we can’t just wash our hands of the issue and ignore the need to plan. “If you and I both know what’s coming, that’s different than if it catches us totally by surprise,” he said. “Shame on us if we don’t do anything.”

BACK TO TOP

Q & A INTERVIEW
Pandemic Flu:
We're in a Race Against Time

Pandemics – diseases that spread across large swaths of geography and population – have occurred regularly throughout human history. Influenza experts are more worried than ever that the next pandemic might rival the 1918 Spanish Flu and the H5N1 virus – Bird Flu – could be the source. Dr. Michael Osterholm is among the world’s leading experts on influenza. “Whatever form it takes, it is sobering to realize that when the last pandemic emerged in 1968, the population of China was 790 million and the poultry population was 12.3 million,” Osterholm wrote in the journal Nature. “Today, those numbers are 1.3 billion and 13 billion, respectively. A pandemic could be unleashed tomorrow or 10 years from now, but the scene for a potential catastrophe is already set.” EMA spoke with Dr.Osterholm on the subject of public preparedness for pandemic flu.

What would the consequences of a pandemic be for the average American community?

It will depend upon how the pandemic plays out. Will it be one of a very severe magnitude – like the 1918 pandemic – or will it be more like 1968-69, which was much milder? It will also depend on how prepared we are before it happens. Right now, unfortunately, we have a long ways to go.

There will be an almost immediate reaction to close borders, to limit transportation between geographic areas, and there likely will be a major decrease in the number of people who report to work. Hospitals will quickly be overrun. We have already stretched the healthcare system to its maximum. What most people don’t understand is that the health care sector is extremely vulnerable to the just-in-time global economy. Today, for example, approximately 80 percent of all the drugs that we use in this country originate – either as raw ingredients or finished product – from offshore. You can see how that would be a very significant problem if the global economy shuts down. The same would be true for food supply. We really have no clue how many deaths might result. In 1918, 100 million people died. Today you’d be talking about 180-360 million.

We held a national summit here in February and the companies represented had more than $3.5 trillion in annual revenue. What we saw, sector by sector, was the one thing that was a tipping point for every one of them was the availability of workers. For example, we heard from the petroleum industry that in the refining of oil, if they had a 20-30 percent loss of employees due to absenteeism, they’d have to shut down the refineries. That would be true of much of our economy.

You have been speaking since 1997 about this threat. How has the threat evolved and how has the response of the public sector changed?

I think people are finally beginning to realize that pandemic influenza is real, that it is not a question of if it will happen but when it will happen and where. None of us knows if H5N1 is going to be the next pandemic strain, but it surely could be. If it is, the potential devastation from something that has that kind of virulence would be dramatic. It could equal that of 1918. Today, our system for response is very limited – we saw that with Katrina – and we will not have modern medical science or vaccines to rescue us at the last moment. I think people are finally understanding all of that and realizing that we must deal with this. But make no mistake – pandemics are like earthquakes, hurricanes, and tsunamis. They do happen.

How does emergency response to a pandemic differ from a hurricane or terrorist attack?

There is no similarity. I say that because those are very short-lived situations – days at the most – for which all the non-affected areas of the country can then send support in to help. While there is a lot of physical damage, we go into recovery mode within hours. Second, there is no serious compromise to supply chains. What we’re talking about with a pandemic is the equivalent of a global blizzard occurring for 12-18 months. That’s very, very different.

Americans have always lived in a bubble when it comes to mega-disasters. Have the lessons learned from 9-11 or Katrina had any appreciable impact?

We have obviously learned things. The question is do we have the will to actually act on them? For example, we still have many communities in this country for which fire and police are on two totally different radio frequencies. This is four-and-a-half years after the fact. It’s not about a technological fix; it’s about a will and resources. Are we going to actually have the commitment? Look at the vaccine situation. The entire vaccine capacity of the world today, in terms of influenza, is so limited as to almost make it a negligible impact response during a pandemic. We can only make enough vaccine to vaccinate about 75 million people worldwide in the first year. In a recent study at NIH (National Institutes of Health), half of those people that were vaccinated didn’t respond to treatment.

The SARS epidemic illustrated how quickly a virus can spread in a mobile world. Is this a preview of a pandemic?

First of all, SARS was much less infectious than influenza. Second, early on in the SARS epidemic, most of the transmission occurred within the healthcare setting – at least in the Americas – so we weren’t worried about a whole community. Where it did occur, in communities like Toronto, you saw major devastation in the local economy. That would be a model for what would happen with influenza but it would happen simultaneously around the world. That adds a whole different dimension to it. The other point is this: SARS came and went within 10 weeks. Pandemic flu would last much longer.

You have said we were better prepared to deal with pandemic flu in 1918 than we are today. What actions should local government decision makers take to prepare?

We were much more self-sufficient in1918 than we are today. Food came from local areas. We only rarely counted on internationally-produced goods. People were just generally more capable of sustaining themselves in a crisis like this. This is exactly what Secretary Leavitt has been saying. Communities need to be prepared to get through this on their own. Back then, communities did that. They didn’t count on the Federal government to come in and bail them out. Communities need to do a very realistic evaluation of what the critical products and services are that are needed to keep their community going during a 12-month pandemic. Will we have food, heat, water? How will we move food if we have it?

How will we handle our dead? Even a crematorium is a just-in-time delivery system. What we saw happening with Katrina was horrible but what tipped us over the edge – in terms of rage – was watching the disrespectful manner in which those bodies were handled. The woman laying face down in the water with a magic marker number written across her back and a rope tied to her wrist to keep her from floating away, waiting for somebody to pick her up…Imagine today, if we can’t process our dead in a timely and respectful way. Every community has got to have some plan in place for how that might happen, for what they might do.

They’ve got to have plans in place for basic safety and security. How will we control our prisoners? Is the court system going to run? Who is going to show up for work? Everybody thinks they’re going to sit at home and work via the Internet. Will the Internet even be there? Is there enough bandwidth? Besides, you can’t make steel from home.

Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH Michael Osterholm, PhD, MPH is the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy (CIDRAP) and Professor in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. He is a key figure in helping governments and the private sector develop plans to address the threat of pandemic flu. An advisor to both the Clinton and Bush administrations, he serves current Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt as a member of the National Science Advisory Board on Biosecurity. Dr. Osterholm has been an international leader on pandemic preparedness, whose appearances on Nightline, Oprah, CNN, and other international media have dramatically raised public awareness of the threat and what can be done to prepare.

BACK TO TOP

CUSTOMER STORY
Operations Optimization
JEA Bolsters Its Bottom Line Using 'Just in Time' Water Supply

The control room (top left) is where JEA fine tunes its Operations Optimization efforts on a daily basis. Michael Eaton (light shirt) and Darren Hollifield (dark shirt) led the implementation of OO, which now provides customers with ‘just-in-time’ water delivery from the outer reaches of the metropolitan area (top right) to downtown Jacksonville (right), and the Jacksonville Landing riverfront (far left).

Running out of money, it has been said, is not a serious obstacle. Running out of ideas – now that’s a problem. For Jacksonville, Florida utility JEA, a shortage of capital in the mid-1990s spawned a far-reaching search for good ideas. What materialized from that quest is an operating methodology – Operations Optimization (OO) – that is both innovative and practical, not to mention good for JEA’s bottom line.

The organization’s idea hunt began in 1997 when the Jacksonville Electric Authority merged with the City of Jacksonville’s water and wastewater utilities to form JEA, the eighth-largest public utility in America. Following the merger, there were two forces at work driving innovation in North Florida: One was the desire to find synergies between the electric utility and its newly-acquired water/wastewater operations. The second was a move by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to place the utility under administrative order for failure to invest adequately in infrastructure improvements.

“JEA was required to spend a lot of money to address the infrastructure issue associated with sanitary sewer overflows, so funds were tight when it came to other capital needs,” said Scott Kelly, Vice President of Water and Wastewater Systems at JEA. “Since 1997, we have spent $500 million on sanitary sewers alone and $1.9 billion overall. We saw the application of this technology as a way of deferring water system capital expenditures and that was a very big deal to us.”

OO – now being implemented at several North American water utilities – is a combination of technological innovation and operational strategies that have enabled the utility to defer several million dollars in capital expenditures, reduce operating costs, and improve water quality.

Maximizing Assets, Capacity

JEA provides water, wastewater, and electric service to more than 850,000 accounts in a four-county region on Florida’s Atlantic coast. St. Johns County, on the southern end of the service territory, is the seventh-fastest growing county in the USA.

JEA has always been an innovator but the merger drove utility leaders to find efficiencies wherever they could. Operations Optimization developed through a joint venture between JEA, EMA, the AWWA Research Foundation (AwwarRF), the St. Johns River Water Management District, and technology provider Gensym.

OO has substantially improved JEA’s water system operations by changing the operating mode from reactive to proactive. It uses a SCADA system, along with data collected from a number of other sources, to minimize cost and improve the operating performance of the entire water system.

OO manages JEA’s consumptive use of the Floridan Aquifer, controls and monitors water quality in real-time, maximizes the value of energy, and maximizes the existing capacity of water system assets. Although various forms of optimization have been attempted by water utilities in the past, JEA’s comprehensive approach makes it unique. OO includes an accelerated software development cycle, the use of advanced and proven software solution techniques from other industries, maximum utilization of existing SCADA system assets, and a firm commitment from JEA to successfully operate the system.

“We wanted to be able to bring the same kind of applications we were using at our power production facilities into the water and sewer side. That has positioned us on the cutting edge in the water and wastewater industry,” Kelly said. “To our knowledge there have been very few applications of this technology within the industry to date.”

The two primary benefits JEA planned to achieve were cost savings and improved aquifer management. JEA draws its water from the Floridan Aquifer under consumptive use limits set by the St. Johns River Water Management District. The challenge was finding a technologically-sound solution to achieve those benefits. That task was led by Michael Eaton, JEA’s Manager of GIS & Engineering Systems.

“The overall goal is really to try and maximize our existing assets and capacity as much as possible,” Eaton explained. “We already had several key pieces to the puzzle to do this. The most important asset was the SCADA architecture, having the network infrastructure to all of our plants and well fields and having the instrumentation and real-time control from one centralized location. The question was how could we leverage that and take it to the next level?”

JEA joined forces with AwwaRF, the St Johns River Water Management District, Gensym, and EMA in a co-funded tailored collaboration project. The result is an operating methodology most water utilities could benefit from.

How the Technology Works

Operations Optimization at JEA uses a real-time modeling and reasoning technology platform to deploy the application. The modeling-based techniques used include neural networks, constraint-based optimization applications, and hydraulic and mass-balance water distribution simulation models. The reasoning engine platform also provides an advising and control automation mode that inputs optimized pumping schedules directly to the SCADA system. The application design involves developing various modular components that integrate to solve optimization problems and to meet JEA’s operating strategies and objectives.

“We’re now better able to manage the withdrawal, treatment, and distribution of water,” said Darren Hollifield, Water Treatment Manager. “If there is better water quality at plant A, additional flows will be produced at that plant which allows flow reductions at the other plants where there is a lesser quality water source.”

Software applications consist of a Data Quality Analyzer, System Scheduler, Water Consumption Forecaster, Water System Simulator, Water Quality Analyzer, Water Supply Analyzer, Pump/Valve Controller, Optimization Monitor, and Equipment Clearance Report.

System components are configured together to automatically develop an optimized daily operating schedule to start and stop remotely-controllable pumps and valves in the water system based on the schedule and time of day. Data from the SCADA system is checked and filtered by the Data Quality Module. The Water Consumption Forecaster provides hourly forecasted consumption for operating areas (sub-grids) within the water system.

Operations Optimization System Uses Data From Multiple Sources

The Water Quality Analyzer generates water quality alarms based on sensor data from SCADA and sample data from the Laboratory Information Management System (LIMS). The Equipment Clearance Report provides information on scheduled maintenance activities affecting system operations.

“All this does is sit on top of the existing system and analyze data and generate real time control strategies,” Eaton explained. “Basically we optimize between the boundaries that are already there. That’s important because if the optimization system fails, or you want to turn it off, nothing’s going to happen to the SCADA and water systems. That’s the safety net.“

An integral component is the Water System Simulator, which uses mass balance and simplified hydraulic network modeling techniques to forecast distribution system variables using SCADA data. The Water System Simulator takes, as input, the pump/valve control schedule developed by System Scheduler and determines if all operating constraints (e.g., reservoir levels and pressures) are satisfied. It generates reports and graphical trends that define and illustrate predicted performance of the daily operating plan.

Operation of the water system changes over time as equipment is taken in and out of service, consumption patterns change, and new facilities are placed into service. The Optimization Monitor continuously monitors conformance to the daily operating plan.

Gensym’s artificial intelligence technology (G2) – used successfully in chemical processes, the pulp and paper industry, electric generation, and telecommunications applications – enabled the utility to radically change its approach. What JEA has done is essentially no different than the transition that has taken place in many industries, automating wherever possible, and enabling just-in-time delivery.

Bottom Line Results

Prior to commencing this project, JEA developed an OO business case that identified multiple opportunities to generate return on investment (ROI).

JEA’s ROI has been relatively rapid because optimization was implemented very quickly. Well field optimization was placed into service just six months from project conception. Distribution system optimization was ready for on-line testing and calibration in 13 months. This was possible because the utility used applied, sophisticated, off-the-shelf software combined with EMA and Gensym’s automation expertise and water system hydraulic modeling developed at the University of North Florida.

The largest immediate payback is capital cost reduction and deferral. The cost to drill and equip a well at JEA averages $1.4 million, making even a single delayed well significant. Maintenance savings are also substantial.

“We took a snapshot of our pumps before and after optimization at the same facility for the same time period and we saw 60-70 percent fewer pumps start,” Hollifield said. “When you’re talking about stops and starts, you’re looking at electrical equipment, starters, inverters, that type of thing. We haven’t calculated the savings yet, but we know that four years ago we had a lot more motor failures than we are having now.”

The OO system has enabled JEA to accurately forecast next-day demand on a regular basis. Fewer operators are required in the field, but there is a need to have good technical people on hand to ensure the instrumentation functions properly. JEA has combined the role of electrical technicians and electronics technicians into a single job requiring a journeyman electrician’s license.

Shifting Paradigms

The introduction of new technology into the water utility environment tends to follow a well-worn path that begins with skepticism and ends with bottom-line improvement. It is the obstacles encountered in between that make the process difficult. The paradigm shift in operating strategy created some challenges.

“For years operators had been reactive to consumption,” Kelly said. “This is a totally different way of thinking now, and you have to build trust in this technology.”

With a no-layoff policy in place, however, resistance waned over time. Operators worked closely with Gensym and EMA staff to incorporate their knowledge of system operations into the end product.

“The level of skill and knowledge that is operating now is head and shoulders above what it used to be,” Hollifield said. “Some people were no longer qualified to operate and had to be reassigned. Others have achieved higher levels of certification.”

Another common barrier to successful technology implementation is communication – between the IT folks who design and install new technology and the operations people who use it. If communication breaks down, the project fails. At JEA, the two sides have been able to cultivate mutual respect and build an effective relationship over time.

Industry-Wide Solution

The water industry has not always been quick to embrace new technology, but success stories like this are quickly changing the way utilities explore the possibilities.

Kelly believes Operations Optimization represents a potential industry-wide solution to the staffing shortages every utility is facing. “I see it as a window of opportunity,” he said, “to apply technologies that will be less labor-intensive but require higher skill sets. The majority of our staff embraces these technologies when we provide them with the proper tools and training.”

Hollifield still encounters the skeptics.

“We’ll show our results with graphs and operating data, but often we encounter those who are reluctant to embrace new technology,” Hollifield said. “When you go to conferences, people talk about what they’re going to do and how it’s going to work. We don’t do that. We say, ‘This is what we have done and these are the results.’”

Fortunately, JEA’s results speak for themselves. The tools have been built, operational changes implemented, and the process of expanding optimization technology to the rest of the utility’s infrastructure is well under way.

“This is a valuable enabling technology that aligns with one of the utility’s strategic initiatives – operational excellence,” Eaton said. “You know, water supply is a resource we need to think about, all of us. I think it’s very important to not take it for granted. The technology is available. We need to use it.”

BACK TO TOP

e-FLUENT
information technology Data Security
Are You Driving Blindfolded?

Candace Chan-Sands Program Manager and Principal Investigator on the WERF/AwwaRF project

Managing a utility without access to key operational data is like driving down the highway blindfolded – it’s only a matter of time before something unpleasant happens. Unfortunately, in a post-9-11 world many utilities – in the name of process control security – are driving in the dark.

Since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, security concerns have taken precedence over real-time access and control in many organizations, leaving operations managers without vital tools to run the utility. It doesn’t need to be that way.

A recent WERF/AwwaRF research project, led by EMA, was designed to provide utilities with a set of leading practices – approaches and tools to assess computerized and automated system vulnerabilities, determine acceptable risks and countermeasures, improvement options, guidelines, and specifications, and develop a transition plan to attain secure and protected systems. The results may surprise you.

Open Systems Are Vulnerable

SCADA and Process Control vulnerabilities were well-known years ago, but it was 9-11 that caused utilities and the government to take action. Balancing access to valuable information with the need to secure automated systems has become today’s reality.

Back when automation became an integral part of operations, there was little concern about outsiders gaining unauthorized access to the system. Complex communication protocols, proprietary real-time operating systems, and limited connectivity acted as safeguards to keep intruders from creating commands on the fly to start, stop, open, close, or otherwise disrupt operating equipment. Besides, who even wanted such access?

Times have changed. Today’s technology and open systems are vulnerable. At the same time, it is almost impossible to operate a utility without the information they hold. The data is required to aid decision making and manage the operation through performance management, energy management, customer relations, asset and maintenance management, water quality, and financial management.

This research project – to be completed in 2006 – has already developed a beta version of a Control System Security Exposure Self-Assessment Tool (CS SESAT). The basic concepts of the tool are now being taken to a more robust level via a collaborative effort with Idaho National Labs under a Department of Homeland Security Industrial Control Cyber Security Program project. The project team is also developing a set of leading practices, guidance, and recommendations to be incorporated into the self-assessment tool.

Eleven US utilities of all sizes participated in the research, testing, and validation of various recommendations and the self-assessment tool. By conducting self-analysis, participating utilities discovered shortcomings in their existing security profile. In spite of increased assessment and awareness efforts, field assessments unveiled previously-unknown vulnerabilities.

Security And Accessibility

The most important result of the research is this: Isolation of SCADA and PCS systems from the rest of the utility’s computer networks in no way guarantees that these systems are secure. Utilities have cut off access to valuable data and left systems vulnerable to intrusion.

Once this project has concluded, utilities will have the necessary approaches, options, guidelines, and specifications to assess computerized and automated system vulnerabilities, determine acceptable risk and countermeasures, and develop a transition plan to attain secure, protected systems. Equally valuable to utilities, however, is the discovery that adequate protection of automation technology doesn’t require organizations to forego seamless access to data.

BACK TO TOP