OMS as a Decision Support Tool
Requirements. System Selection and Costs
FPC defined its requirements in a way that would allow the team to identify the system that could
provide the greatest compliance with off-the-shelf integrated solutions and allow them to develop
a cost model. After reviewing the proposals received, FPC selected Intergraph’s solution because
of its extensive functionality and the high level of GIS/OMS/CAD integration. The Intergraph
solution eliminates interfacing issues between these complex systems.
Business Case. Financial Analysis, and Justification
In building the business case, FPC constructed a detailed plan with quarterly breakdowns for all
components over a five-year period. This level of detail allowed FPC to examine all costs and
benefits on a refined and accurate basis. It also provides an excellent tracking mechanism, a key
factor in the project. Many of the FPC initiatives will affect the “bottom line” SAIDI value.
A detailed analysis is essential to meet these goals. For example, a critical factor in the formula
for success is using off-the-shelf solutions. The complexity and costs associated with maintaining
customized solutions, versus those of off-the-shelf solutions, in an integrated environment made
the choice a clear one. The details showed the true value of pre-integration and standardization.
Customized components are costly because of new releases in underlying technology and the
incremental adjustments required. Combine this factor with the cost of integrating the
customized systems at different levels of revision, and the corporate tendency to want a unique
system may seem less important. The costs associated with computerizing old methods and
procedures instead of taking advantage of new technology are extremely high. Although
completely eliminating the need for updating old procedures is impossible, FPC’S project is based
on minimizing these costs. This approach does increase training requirements, but these have
been included in the plan at far less cost than the alternative.
The chart below presents the stair-step approach used in the FPC financial analysis, and the
outline emphasizes the characteristics of quali~ing and justifying the project aligned with new
goals.
- Justification emphasis has shifted:
- Outline of needs and plan
- Economic and technical analysis
- Balanced financial analysis
- Customer – reliability, improved cycle time and response
- Employee – job satisfaction, knowledge retention, current state tools
- Process - productivity
- Stock holder – lower costs, savings, revenues, positioning, and increased EVA
- Payback and IRR from Income Statement
- EVA and Payback (Net Operating Profit After minus Cost of Capital on
- Embedded Asset Base) from Balance Sheet
- Careful monitoring and updating of Business Case assumptions
- Ability to modify deployment plan based on changing, modular business case parameters.
FPC applied an EVA assessment strategy in building the business case. This model’s
requirement for an accurate project plan with which to predict the timing of expense and capital
benefits and costs changed the justification dramatically. Applying a vaiue to ~eliability
decreased the EVA payback period by almost one-half.
Financial Analysis
The EVA financial analysis was of significant value. The chart below documents the points at
which FPC will achieve savings during the restoration workflow. A key factor influencing the
areas of benefits is the fact that FPC had already deployed a trouble analysis system. Although
this was a non-graphic based system, many benefits of trouble reporting and diagnosis were
already achieved. As a result, greater benefits were recognized in other areas. Companies
without automated trouble analysis would show a very different distribution of benefits.
Solution
The integrated OMS, CAD, and GIS solution provided by Intergraph meets the FPC corporate
goal of reducing power interruption time through tightly integrated optimization of each step in
the restoration workflow. A fast, smooth flow through and between each step is paramount in
significantly reducing outage time. Functionality from each component is used as the work
progresses through the restoration cycle.
The following chart shows the relationships between the integrated components and the workflow
timeline. The shaded areas indicate where functionality is engaged and why smooth transitions
are critical. Although this paper focuses primarily on OMS, certain design and work management
integration issues are also critical to keeping the facilities model current and accurate. Therefore,
the chart incorporates the design/work management workflow and identifies component
engagements for reference.
The FPC project team viewed GIS as the foundation for the D2K project. The FPC asset database
requires a central repository that is spatially oriented and capable of integrating with WMS and
OMS, as well as other third-party applications. For FPC, GIS is the keeper of the assets and is
responsible for providing asset information to the user community.
