Energy infrastructure emergency coordination system
The dispatcher sees an energy incident, affected objects and the work of crews. Verified information about the malfunction and restoration is passed to the customer service team.
Incident signals, network status, work done and affected customers are recorded separately. Commands are based on different recovery plans, so customers may be posted a result that has not yet been confirmed.
How the solution works
- Signals and messages are linked to a potential incident, preserving the likelihood of individual causes.
- The authorized operations team checks the current scope of the network and the affected service.
- The work and resources adopted are linked to the recovery plan and its dependencies.
- The Brigade's facts update the situation and the basis of the published estimate.
- Restoration of the service is approved for its parts, and the remaining repairs and reasons are passed on to the following course.
Key challenges
- Teams have no general information about the disorder and recovery work at the time of the accident
Solution capabilities
Related and individual events
Signals are grouped according to time, connection and state checked; misaligned cases can be separated without losing history.
Extent of impact
Relevant network information is associated with the actual recipient of the service, noting a connection that has not yet been verified.
The Recovery Plan adopted
The coordinator sees an authorized solution of operations, the interdependence of works, and the actual allocation of resources.
Updating the maturity estimate
The forecast has a preparation time, assumption and known uncertainty; the change is presented clearly.
Partial and Final Recovery
The team checks which part of the network the service has been restored to. Customers still affected and work not done remain on the incident list.
Business context
- Teams have no general information about the disorder and recovery work at the time of the accident
- Incident signals, network status, work done and affected customers are recorded separately. Commands are based on different recovery plans, so customers may be posted a result that has not yet been confirmed.
- The disorder is reported to the customer according to the confirmed situation
- A resident or company needs to know if the disorder has touched its object and what recovery information is already confirmed. When the dispatcher and service team rely on the same confirmed information, customers receive consistent responses. The customer can plan their actions according to the confirmed circumstances of the disorder until the crews restore the service.
Core features
- Related and individual events
- Extent of impact
- The Recovery Plan adopted
- Updating the maturity estimate
- Partial and Final Recovery
Key integrations
- Network monitoring and management systems
- Reliable event, its time and authorized regime information.
- Network and recipient communications
- Relevant service topology and the basis of affected objects.
- Preparation and execution of works
- The task, obstacles and work done have been accepted by the brigade.
- Customer communication
- Confirmed message and its state of presentation.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Waiting for incident coordination
6–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of waiting caused by missing information or unclear responsibility can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 30-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
The avoidable wait between the decision and the decision of the executor is measured, separating the time required for technical work.
Mispronounced Service Recovery
12–42%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of errors can be addressed through the data and rule checks described. That share is assumed to fall by 40-70%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Counting messages that have had to be corrected for unwarranted service recovery confirmation. A new later malfunction message is not considered an error of previous information.
Part of negative feedback on service recovery
5–20%Decreasing
Indicative assumption: 20-40% of negative reviews relate to unclear service recovery information. The solution could reduce this portion by 25-50%. This is a scenario of potential; the assumptions need to be verified by feedback collected by the company.
When a company starts collecting reviews, negative feedback about the restoration of the service is counted from all assessments received on the topic. The same method of evaluation is applied before and after installation and similar customer groups are compared. Without initial data, the actual change is not determined.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- Several crews are involved in the elimination of one malfunction, and services to different customers are restored at different times.
- It is difficult for dispatchers to distinguish the associated messages from independent failures and assign the required crews.
Implementation requirements
For accident management, signals sources, infrastructure communications and identification of affected service recipients are compatible. The operator defines the rights of recovery approval and the responsibility of contractors for providing the result of the works, especially when the service is restored in stages.
Further development options
- Coordination of additional types of incidents based on their true basis of recovery
- Notifications to affected customers via additional channels, verification of the list of recipients and delivery result