Significant opportunities exist for UK Water Companies to improve the incorporation of new technologies. Following interviews with key staff in 8 of the UK’s major water companies, it is clear that British conservatism is alive and well, but that this is not necessarily attributable to the psyche of the British businessperson.

The research upon which this article is based, involved a study of the processes by which new technologies are sought and/or acquired and by which they are assessed and incorporated into the infrastructure of the British water industry. A new dissolved oxygen measurement technology that is currently at various stages of assessment and incorporation in all of these companies, will be used as an example to demonstrate the process.

All British water companies believe that they are conservative in their approach to new technology, and there are four main reasons for this. Firstly, some of them concede that the British might be conservative by nature – they prefer to invest in technologies that are well proven, rather than taking risks. However, most companies pointed out that the British water industry is heavily regulated, and as such it is risk-averse and the penalty for failures can be severe. In addition, Robin Lennox, ICA Specialist for South West Water reminds us that the value of our end product is relatively low, and consequently the payback on investment in technology is lower than it would be in the Oil Industry for example. Dr Issy Caffoor from Yorkshire Water and Marie-Pierre Whaley from Northumbrian Water, both add that there is little incentive for British water companies to invest in new technology unless the payback is both high and highly predictable.

The process by which companies acquire, evaluate and incorporate new technology are broadly similar across all of the water companies interviewed.
First, there has to be a need – “we will not test a technology for the sake of it” is a common expression. A need might exist because of unsatisfactory existing equipment, or that a void exists, or that a supplier is claiming that its product is considerably better (Robin Lennox emphasised the latter, saying that changing supplier is a costly process, so manufacturers should only approach water companies with technologies that offer a quantum leap in performance and whole-life cost reduction).
Once a need is identified, a trial may ensue, or the results from other trials may be evaluated. Such trials generally run for about 6 months, but this period varies according to the technology under evaluation.
The evaluation process includes an analysis of the technology’s lifelong cost, including such aspects as the ease and cost of installation and maintenance, operating principle, application suitability, price, life expectancy, accuracy, reliability etc.
Following the trial, results are evaluated by a cross-functional group, before being ‘accepted’. This as David Craft, Principle Process Engineer at Southern Water points out, may need ‘selling’ internally by a well-respected member of staff, although Chris Jones, R & D Manger at Northumbrian Water, believes that projects with early support at the evaluation stage stand a good chance of implementation if the trial is a success.
Most companies operate a list of approved products or technologies that is reviewed regularly and forms the basis of the company’s purchasing activity.

In many instances, if a technology is likely to be purchased in a significant quantity, it may become the subject of a Purchasing or Framework Agreement. These agreements generally run for 2 two 5 years and follow the regulatory 5 year periods, and their benefit lies in both a reduction in purchase prices and in administration costs. However, opinion varies as to whether such agreements can hinder the introduction of new technology. Anglia Water, Severn Trent Water, and Yorkshire Water all agree that if a new technology is approved at a time that does not coincide with the review of a Framework Agreement, then incorporation may have to wait for a window of opportunity. In contrast, Southern Water, South West Water and Welsh Water are able to assimilate new technologies irrespective of any existing agreements.

A new technology that is currently at various stages of either evaluation or incorporation in all of the British Water Companies is Hach Lange’s new Luminescence Dissolved Oxygen (LDO™) sensor. This technology was developed to resolve some of the maintenance and calibration issues that exist with traditional membrane-based sensors. Its main benefit lies in the improved control of aeration in activated sludge, which is an important application because the energy consumed in this process accounts for 60 to 70% or the total plant operational costs. As such, most companies have recognised a need to improve the aeration control process.
At Anglia Water for example, having identified this need a trial of 9 dissolved oxygen sensors was initiated at one of their Innovation Centres. The objectives of the trial were to find the best sensor(s) for reducing energy costs and the costs of maintenance, and to improve the overall accuracy of the DO measurement. Even though the LDO™ was launched after the instigation of the trial, it was still possible for the probe to be included, and as a result the LDO™ was included in the list of recommended probes from the trial. Anglia Water’s Joanne Callan reports that following the trial the new DO technology will be rolled out into the business in three ways. Firstly, the operations department will use one of the recommended probes where replacement is required. Secondly, technical information will be included in the engineering and design manual for new builds, and thirdly, the infrastructure management team could evaluate the plants that would benefit from a re-fit to improve DO control.
Over the last 6 to 12 months, all major UK water companies have evaluated the LDO™, and whilst the cost benefits are now well known, it has yet to be fully incorporated by some companies. This is either because other projects have a higher priority, or because insufficient funding is available.
Dr Issy Caffoor from Yorkshire Water would not be surprised to learn that the pace of incorporation of this new technology has slowed at the incorporation stage, since he comments “this is very often the case”, adding that “ there needs to be greater incentive for water companies to develop and implement new technology, not least if the UK is to meet the EU objective of 3% of GDP expenditure on research and development by 2010.”

It is interesting to note that the incorporation of a new dissolved oxygen measurement technology is furthest back in the process at Welsh Water, and it may be that the company’s structure is the cause - Welsh Water is structured in a different way to the UK Water PLCs in that under the ownership of Glas Cymru, it has outsourced the delivery of many of its day-to-day operations. . However Tim Speakman, Engineering Manager at Meica Process, one of Welsh Water’s strategic contractor partners delivering its investment programme, believes that “this structure, coupled with a ‘bath to bay’ approach puts us in a better, more flexible, position to exploit new technology. This ‘bath to bay’ approach provides a more holistic view of a ‘catchment’, which means that we can prioritise action for improvements. As a result, capital and operational budgets have to work together very closely. So, from a new technology supplier’s point of view the benefits they can offer will have to compete with, say, the benefits of action on flooding or sewer overflow.”
So, it all comes back to funding and prioritisation, however, if funds are so tight in the UK water industry that it is less able to quickly exploit new technology, then an opportunity for improvement must exist.

Another area of the new technology process with obvious potential for improvement is the sharing of knowledge and experience. For example, some new processes are expensive to pilot, so one company might invest in a trial and invite others to view the results. Similarly, companies may instigate research internally, at Universities or with organisations such as WRc. However, UK water companies are essentially in competition with each other so there is a danger that it would not be in their best interest to share knowledge.
In this area the smaller companies are most vulnerable – they do not have the resources to fund significant research and have to rely on networking with other companies, and events run by organisations such as CIWEM or UKWIR.
Possibly the best example of knowledge sharing exists under the auspices of an organisation known as SWIG (Sensors for Water Interest Group, www.swig.org.uk ) that organises regular meetings to discuss new technology and experiences in the water sensor sector. In the case of the LDO™ sensor, news of its development is able to spread very quickly through the network that SWIG creates. However, there is a lack of similarly focused organisations for other new technology areas within the water sector.

In conclusion, the processes by which UK water companies incorporate new technology are well developed, however, the continuous incorporation of new technology is only likely to improve if the UK Government and the Regulator are able to create appropriate incentives, and if the industry as a whole is able to share knowledge and experience, without affecting competitiveness.

Ends
Words: 1514