Addressing the records standardization challenge
System Design and Data Conversion Issues
MEC had over 600,000 gas service cards to convert. Original cost estimates associated
with gas service conversion were very high when compared to other AIM features. The
AIM project team was directed to find a way to hold down those costs.
The project team and the conversion vendor developed a plan to hold down gas service
card conversion cost by using a process called automated digitization (splat). The AIM
project team studied gas service card drawings and found that gas service paths
conformed to 12 basic paths 89% of the time. The team decided to capture the standard
service configuration (SSC) number during the gas service card rake-off process and have
the splat program place the service paths. A CAD operator would digitize the service
paths that did not conform to one of the twelve standard service configurations, which we
captured as an SSC13.
The down side to using the SSC process was the loss of information from the service
cards. Most dimensions shown on the service cards would not be captured and service
fittings would not be displayed on the map. For years, persons involved with District
Operations record keeping had been consistently telling the construction crews to show as
much detail as possible on the service card drawings.
This led to a very difficult decision for the AIM project team and sponsors. Ultimately
the expected cost savings out-weighted the data quantity. The result of the decision was
not perceived well in the user community and this subject was almost always raised
during the initial contacts between the project team and the users.
The project team learned that the best way to handle the situation was to be
straightforward and honest with the users. We never tried to avoid discussions on the
subject and we attempted work with the users while they adjusted to the change. We
found that this decision made it very difficult to sell standardization.
Legacy Systems Overview
Prior to the AIM conversion project, District Operations maintained their own gas and
electric mapping systems. The only consistent aspect from one service center to another
was the inconsistency. Each area had its own level of detail, different equipment callouts,
different symbology, etc. Timeliness of updates provided to the field ranged from
monthly to annually. Persons performing mapping functions ranged from clerical
positions to engineers and supervisors. They learned the mapping trade from training
passed down through generations of employees who reported to their own service center.
When the AIM project team interviewed the District Operations personnel in regards to
their mapping system, a common reply to our questions was "I don't know, but that's the
way we've always done it".
The project team found that the individual mapping systems offered clues as to the type
of equipment installed, but did not tell the whole story. On the bright side, there was
usually a records expert for each of the areas that could interpret the information for us.
These experts were generally supervisors, engineers, construction foremen, and facility
locators who were nearing retirement. In most cases, the experts had been around the
area long enough to remember the construction practices used over the years.
Types of Legacy Systems
Due to the number of predecessor companies at MEC, we had an abnormally high
number of mapping systems. There was a wide array of sources for AIM conversion,
which included:
Some areas would use the same type of map as another area but would use different
symbology and equipment call-outs. Source matrices not only had to be created for each
type of map but also for each area. The same piece of equipment was often located on
four of five maps. To say the least, the project team had their hands full.
Team Building
One of the single most important tasks of the project team was to find the system experts
for all of the operations areas. We usually had to rely on a team for each area, since most
of the team members were only experts in a specific field. We rarely found an employee
or former employee that had a full understanding of all aspects of their system.
Pulling together a team of experts was at times complicated. It was hard to get area
experts for the amount of time required to gather all of the information needed for
conversion. Most of the experts had busy schedules and found it hard to juggle helping
the project team and keeping their own projects on track.
However, the project team had great luck using retirees as consultants for the project.
Most of them were happy to lend their expertise to the project. We capitalized on the fact
that it was time to get the information out of their head and into the new system, and they
were usually very proud of past accomplishments and loved to share their knowledge and
related war stories.
