Understanding KPIs for Non-Revenue Water: Insights from the Questionnaire Results

The purpose of this blog post is to provide feedback on the results of a questionnaire conducted as part of the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) initiative for non-revenue water (NRW). This initiative began in June 2023, following discussions between Stuart Hamilton and David Pearson. The main goals are to collect, report, and compare data on water losses and to track progress in addressing these losses across different countries.

Background of the KPI Initiative

The KPI initiative group consists of a core team including David Pearson, Yor Koob, Stuart Tro, and Alan Wyatt, with a broader review group comprising members from the Water Loss Steering Group and various international regulators. The initiative aims to establish effective KPIs that can be used for benchmarking, reference levels, and target setting. A significant challenge has been the distinction between non-revenue water, apparent losses, and real losses, which is crucial for developing appropriate KPIs.

The Questionnaire

To assess current KPI practices, a questionnaire was designed to gather information on:

• The types of KPIs collected
• Ownership and publication of data
• Frequency and currency of data
• The purpose of the data and the role of the publishing organization

The questionnaire was open from May 24 to June 21, 2023, and aimed to understand how different countries manage data assessment for NRW.

Participation and Response Rates

The questionnaire received 37 completed responses from participants across 24 countries on six continents. However, the response rate was lower than expected, with many participants starting but not completing the questionnaire. Most respondents were from Europe, particularly Austria, Germany, Spain, and Poland, while regions like South America and Africa had limited representation.

Key Findings from the Questionnaire

1. Water Balance Calculation: A significant majority of respondents reported calculating a water balance in accordance with the International Water Association (IWA) format, indicating a positive trend in standardization.
2. Commonly Used Indicators: The most frequently calculated indicators included:
   • Real loss volume (in cubic meters)
   • Non-revenue water as a percentage
   • Real loss as a percentage While these indicators are widely used, there is concern that percentages may not be suitable for technical interpretation.
3. Data Collection Frequency: Most data is collected annually, although some regulators require monthly data. This highlights the need for consistency in data reporting practices.
4. Publication of Data: A notable proportion of data is published anonymously, particularly in countries like Austria and Germany, which may affect transparency and accountability.
5. Target Setting: The Infrastructure Leakage Index (ILI) and real losses were commonly used for setting internal and external targets, although there was some confusion regarding the definitions of connections and losses.
6. Data Quality and Reliability: Many respondents indicated that they use error margins for data reliability, which is crucial for accurate assessments.

Challenges Identified

The questionnaire revealed several challenges in the current KPI landscape:

• Low Response Rates: The level of engagement was disappointing, with many participants not completing the questionnaire. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the outreach methods used.
• Complexity of Questions: Some questions may have been too complex, leading to participant drop-off. Simplifying the questionnaire while maintaining its value is a key consideration for future iterations.
• Definition Clarity: There is a need for clearer definitions of terms such as water loss and non-revenue water, as confusion can lead to inconsistent data reporting.

Future Directions

Moving forward, the KPI initiative aims to:

• Develop guidance notes that explain the pros and cons of different performance indicators.
• Encourage broader participation from underrepresented regions, particularly in Africa and South America.
• Explore the possibility of a two-stage questionnaire to accommodate varying levels of participant availability and expertise.
• Collaborate with national associations and regulators to enhance data collection efforts.

Conclusion

The feedback from the questionnaire provides valuable insights into the current state of KPI practices for non-revenue water. While there are challenges to address, the initiative has the potential to improve data collection and benchmarking practices globally. By fostering collaboration and clarity in definitions, the KPI initiative can help utilities better understand and manage their water loss, ultimately leading to more sustainable water management practices.