KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS
IN RURAL WATER SUPPLY
David Still
Partners in Development (Pty) Ltd
PO Box 11431, Dorpspruit, 3206, Pietermaritzburg, South Africa
dave@pid.co.za
ABSTRACT:
South Africa has seen a number of evaluation and monitoring initiatives in the last five
years. There is a tendency, however, to embark on or promote ambitious monitoring
programmes, with scores of indicators, and this is simply not sustainable in practice (which
is evident from the fact that at present very little monitoring happening). It is better to start
with something simple, and to build up from there. In reality the only successful ongoing
rural water supply monitoring programme which has been observed in the field is that
which was conducted from 2001 to 2005 by Service Support Agents under contract to the
Alfred Nzo Municipality.
A further programme that shows great potential as a
management tool is the District Information Management System (DIMS), which has been
piloted by the uThungulu District Municipality, and is at present being rolled out in a further
ten municipalities in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape (see www.dims.org.za).
The three most important indicators of a water supply scheme’s health are:
o water quality [where the basic questions are: does it look good? does it taste good?
does it smell good? and is it disinfected? / is the source protection in order?]
o reliability [measured as working tap days as a percentage of the maximum
possible]; and
o source sustainability [where this is an indicator showing either the level in the dam,
the flow in the spring or the level in the borehole, relative to some minimum
allowable level].
1.
INTRODUCTION
In November 2000 The Mvula Trust produced, on behalf of the Department of Water
Affairs and Forestry, a publication entitled “Developing Community-based monitoring and
Evaluation Tools for Rural Water and Sanitation Projects” (1). This study contains very
useful, practical methods for field management of rural water projects. However, perhaps
the most useful insight provided by the report is conveyed in the following quotation:
The water committee felt that the tools were important aids with which to identify issues or
problems that needed to be followed up. For example, they discovered that the
bookkeeper had stopped completing records, due to the fact that the committee was not
looking at the books.
That aptly illustrates the saying, people don’t do what you expect, they do what you
inspect. But if you are going to inspect, then what do you inspect, how do you inspect, and
how do you report on your inspection? If the inspection system is too onerous or
burdensome, it will be ignored, or the inspectors will tend to return spurious information.
If the system is too superficial, the results will be meaningless.
The management of the operation and maintenance of water systems is the function of
local government, and over much of South Africa local government is only now starting to
feel its way into that new responsibility. Staff have been hired, capacity is being built, and
funds are being made available. Water Services Managers must now start to monitor the
Key Performance Indicators on their water systems, so that they know whether they are
working reliably and delivering the right quantity and quality of water.
There are scores of different Performance Indicators that are encountered in government
reporting systems. The problem is that these are typically too numerous and varied to
help the harried council official who needs to know the answers to simple but critical
questions like:
• what is it costing to supply one kilolitre on this project, and what is the trend in this
cost?
• how reliable is this supply and is it getting better or worse?
• can the water source sustain the demand that is being placed on it?
• is the water quality on this scheme acceptable?
• how much water is being lost, and are losses getting better or worse?
• how much water is being consumed, and is it getting more or less?
In the author’s experience in studying rural water supply projects all over South Africa,
very few water supply authorities can answer these questions with ease or with
confidence, and yet all would agree that this should not be so. There is thus a need for
simple but effective monitoring and benchmarking systems for rural water supply.
The challenge is therefore to develop simple and effective reporting systems, easily
understood by rural water committees, which they can be expected to use to report to their
own communities, as well as to the relevant authorities. The set of KPIs must pictorially
depict trends (good or bad) in strategic areas such as service performance, financial
health and accountability. With such a system in place, monthly management reviews
can become more effective occasions for communication, problem identification and
problem solving.
2. KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND BENCHMARKS
The provision of water is vital to all communities. Water Service Authorities/Providers are
generally not subject to market competition, therefore, it is important that water provision is
independently monitored to ensure that the performance of service providers is at an
acceptable standard. In South Africa, the water service sector has significant financial
constraints and it is thus imperative that supply is effective and efficient if it is to be
sustainable (2). This is formally supported in South Africa through the Water Services Act
(No. 108 of 1997) which requires annual performance reporting to the Department of
Water Affairs and Forestry.
2.1
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Benchmarks as a management tool
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) and Benchmarks are management tools for monitoring
and improving the performance of people, systems, processes and organisations.
Depending on the context, there may be some overlap in the definition between KPIs and
Benchmarks. However, for the purposes of this paper, Key Performance Indicators and
Benchmarks are defined as follows:
Benchmark: A benchmark is a measurement describing a key aspect of an entity that is
being studied. It is typically an aspect that changes little with time, if at all.
For example the length of water pipe per customer served is a benchmark
which will vary according to housing density and to level of service. The
number of Water Service Provider staff per 1000 customers served would be
an indicator of WSP efficiency, and so on. Benchmarks are useful for
comparing the performance of entities at the same time.
KPI:
A Key Performance Indicator, or KPI, is a measurement that describes how
well an entity is meeting its objectives, or the health of an entity, and may
vary significantly with time. For example, the volume of water which cannot
be accounted for in a system is a measurement that can vary significantly
with time, depending on the frequency and the seriousness of leaks, and the
length of time it takes to deal with those leaks. The balance in the operating
account would be another example of a time variable indicator.
This paper deals only with KPIs.
Indicators that vary significantly with time cannot be interpreted meaningfully when viewed
at and isolated point in time. Such indicators have to be monitored regularly in order for
the trend in the indicator to be established. For example, a tap or set of taps might not be
operational on the day of an inspection, and one might conclude that the whole system is
“not working”. What one really needs to know is, how many taps of the total are not
working, how long has this been the case, and how often does this occur? To answer
these questions requires a system of continuous monitoring, much like the heart rate and
blood pressure charts which are hung at the end of every patient’s bed in well a run
hospital.
2.2
Current KPI initiatives in South Africa
Water supply in South Africa is not short of KPI systems and initiatives, for there are many
organisations involved in the various water supply programmes. A selection of these
initiatives is described below:
•
The Human Sciences Research Council (HSRC) (3)
The HSRC has undertaken an evaluation of 23 water schemes in KZN for the
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry. The projects were classified in one of
four categories: not working; problematic, but working; functioning; and sustainable.
To qualify as sustainable a project had to meet the following seven criteria: regular
supply in all standpipes; regular operations and maintenance; standpipes within 200
metres of households and 25 litres per person per day available; income covering
costs of running project; inclusion of the poorest in the community; free water
provision; consistent support and planning from the District Municipality. As far as
project evaluation tools are concerned, the HSRC’s evaluation criteria are concise
and relevant.
•
•
•
•
Mvula Trust (1)
In 1999/2000 the Mvula Trust published a report on behalf of DWAF entitled
“Developing Community-based Monitoring and Evaluation Tools for Rural Water
and Sanitation Projects”. The report includes useful flowcharts and monitoring
sheets such as: the cost recovery flowchart; the bookkeeping flowchart; the daily
fault reporting monitoring sheet; and four flowcharts under the title of “Healthy Taps”
– each exploring one management question (Is water flowing out of the taps when
required? Have there been indications of water loss in the past few weeks? Is the
pump or engine in good working order? Is the reservoir in good working order?)
These flowcharts provide a good basis for the training of the staff who operate
water schemes, whether they are community members or municipal employees.
Pybus/ Water Research Commission (2)
A report titled “Guidelines for the Implementation of Benchmarking Practices in the
Provision of Water Services in South Africa” was completed for the Water Research
Commission by Pybus in 2002. The guidelines are targeted at all sectors of local
authority involved in water and sanitation services (although it will be more useful to
the larger utilities). One of the products of the study is a list of 101 suggested KPIs
which fall into five categories: service delivery; financial credibility; technical
effectiveness; human resources; background information. Although the list is
extensive, Pybus emphasises that not all the indicators are necessary. The list is
comprehensive and is intended to cover all levels and types of water services.
The District Information Management System (DIMS)
The District Information Management System (DIMS) is an Internet-based
programme management system which may well be the future of municipal
governance in South Africa. It can be viewed at www.dims.org.za. It has been
developed by the Pietermaritzburg based IT company Intermap, who have been
working closely with the Department of Local Government and Housing and the
Development Bank of Southern Africa. Piloted in the uThungulu District Municipality
in 2002 and 2003, it is now in the process of being rolled out to the rest of KwaZulu
Natal’s District Municipalities as well as two in the Eastern Cape. The system
handles information under the main categories of Integrated Development Plan
(IDP), Project Management, Performance Management, Asset Management,
Finance, Procurement and Human Resources. The system will enable municipal
managers to keep their fingers on the pulse of every aspect of their organisation
(provided the system of data collection and entry is sound - which will only be the
case with active verification and good management).The category which deals with
the monitoring of completed projects (of any kind) is “Asset Management”. The
data fields under asset management are, however, specific to the type of project
which is being referred to, and to the requirements of the municipality.
The Alfred Nzo District Municipality - KPI and Benchmarking in Practice in rural
SA (4)
From 2001 until August 2005 the Alfred Nzo District Municipality (ANDM), which is
located in the northern part of the Eastern Cape, operated and maintained most of
its rural water projects using three Services Support Agents, each contracted to look
after a group of village water schemes. A total population of 390 000 were served
by 130 schemes which range in size from small standalone schemes to large
regional schemes. The Services Support Agents (SSAs) used Community Based
Organisations (CBOs) to fulfil as many of the operation and maintenance tasks as
possible, including some reporting (Illing and Gibson, 2004). A monthly operations
and maintenance report was one of the basic systems at the foundation of the SSA
programme. This report was simple enough to be filled in as part of a routine
monthly meeting, and the SSA could use it to compile a monthly report to the
ANDM.
The SSA then combined the reports for all the villages under its supervision into one
summary report, which was submitted to the ANDM on a monthly basis. This report
in turn has summary sheets which combine all the information in one page per
ward, and in one line per village. That summary gives the following headings per
village:
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
Population
Quality (e-coli/100 ml), if sampled in the month
Quantity (% of FBW)
Continuity (% operating)
Cost of service (as % of budget allowed)
Repairs (key items described)
ISD (good, acceptable, problematic)
Incidents
Sanitation (if anything is happening)
The fields were colour coded, to enable the reader’s eye to immediately pick out
where the service is acceptable, and where it is not.
In essence the ANDM SSA system functioned on a 3 level system. At the ground
level, simple data capturing was practised, and most of this did not need to be done
by technical staff. At the SSA, this data was analysed and a more sophisticated,
but still easily assimilated, village report was produced. That was the second level.
The third level was the compilation of the monthly progress report for the group of
villages under the SSA’s care. This combined the village level reports into tables,
colour coded so that problems were flagged for the ANDM’s attention.
Since August 2005 the ANDM has taken over the management of all its water
schemes. It is not known if they have kept up with the monitoring and reporting
system described above.
2.3
Reporting systems to capture KPIs
Section 2.2. above has shown that there are many approaches to the evaluation and
monitoring of water schemes, but there are three indicators which stand out as being of
prime importance. These are water quality, the reliability of the service, and the
sustainability of the source. If a scheme is failing on any of these three indicators, then
urgent action is required. It is therefore worth discussing how these indicators can and
should be monitored in the field, for it is one thing to agree that an indicator should be
monitored, it is another to agree on how to go about it.
2.3.1 Water quality
In the case of the large urban utilities (e.g. Rand Water) water quality is tested at the
delivery side of the treatment works on an hourly basis. In the case of rural water supply
the best that can be achieved (due to cost and time implications) is one test per month –
and in most cases not even this is done. A once per month test is a very uncertain
indicator of water quality. How then, can an authority put in place a useful monitoring
system which gives at least a daily indicator of water quality?
A system which is proposed and which has been tested in the field is to use a set of 31
glass bottles, one of which is filled at a tap in the scheme every day. The scheme
administrator is given a record sheet with four blocks to fill in for each calendar day. The
administrator takes a sample for that day, which is stored in a glass bottle which is marked
with that day’s date. The first three blocks on the sheet are for the simple look, taste and
smell criteria. Does the water look good? Does the water taste good? Does the water
smell good? The fourth block is for disinfection status, or source integrity.
How can one practically test for disinfection status in the field?
One method is the
“colilert” test. A small amount of agar is placed in a 5 ml test tube, and this is filled with a
sample of the water that is to be tested. The sample is then incubated using body heat for
24 hours, after which time it is inspected. A clear yellow colour means there are no faecal
coliforms in the water, while a black colour means there are faecal coliforms. The test is
crude, not being able to distinguish between a water which has, say, less than 10 e-coli
per 100 ml, and one which has, say, 1000. The main problem with the test, however, is
the methodology. A dedicated researcher might be prepared to sleep with test tubes
strapped to his body, but the average village water operator or council official cannot be
expected to do such a test routinely. The colilert test is therefore not very practical or
useful in the field. Equally crude, but much simpler and more practical is the H2S strip test,
which is available from the CSIR. With this test a strip of paper impregnated with H2S is
placed in a 100 ml plastic bottle containing the water sample. Without incubation the
sample turns black if the water is contaminated, and stays clear if it is not. However, even
the H2S test is not the final solution. It is relatively cheap (R20/test), but even at that price
it is too expensive for frequent use by a community-based Water Service Provider.
Cairncross has indicated that the most effective method for community level surveillance
of water quality is to test for residual chlorine (5). If the water is not being disinfected,
there is no point in testing for coliforms, because there will definitely be coliforms. If the
water is being disinfected, however, the presence of coliforms is unlikely. A simple
swimming pool type test kit is all that is required for residual chlorine testing in the field. If
there is no chlorination (or other form of disinfection) taking place, then a routine
inspection of the source for signs of contamination is recommended. If the source is a
protected spring or a protected borehole, and there has been no deterioration in the
integrity of that source, then the water quality can be assumed to be good until a
laboratory test proves otherwise.
For water quality to be considered acceptable on a day, all four of the quality criteria (look,
taste, smell and source integrity/disinfection status), must be acceptable. For a simple
visual check the blocks of the control sheet can be coloured in by the system administrator
– red for not acceptable, and green for acceptable. The water quality indicator for the
month would be the percentage of days with acceptable water.
2.3.2 Reliability
Reliability is not a simple indicator to assess, and yet in terms of customer satisfaction,
there is probably nothing more important. But how is reliability assessed? For example, if
the pump is off for two days, but the reservoir is large enough so that there is still water at
all the taps for the duration of the pump problem, then there is no impact on reliability. If
the pump is off for two days but the reservoir is too small and all the taps are without water
on day two, then the pump problem is felt by the consumers. If a pipe breaks, and 5% of
the taps are affected for a week while the repairs are being done, that is an issue for the
customers affected, but most customers are still happy with the service. If another pipe
breaks (say the rising main), and all the taps are without water for the week, then that is a
much more serious problem.
To enable the reliability indicator to be measured intelligently therefore, a control sheet
should be filled in on a daily basis, with one block to indicate the number of taps in the
scheme on that day, and another to indicate the number of taps which were actually
working on that day. At the end of the month a percentage score can be worked out to
indicate how reliable and effective the scheme has been in that period. The percentage is
calculated by summing the actual “working tapdays” and dividing by the potential total
number of working tapdays.
For example, say a scheme has 40 taps, and for 20 days in the month in question, all of
them worked. For the other ten days in the month, only 25 of the taps worked, because
there was a problem with the bulk pipeline feeding one area with fifteen taps and the
supply had to be switched off there while it was being fixed. In this case:
Working tap days
=
20 days x 40 taps + 10 days x 25 taps =
1050
Potential working tap days =
30 days x 40 taps
=
1200
Therefore the reliability index for this scheme for the month is 1050 / 1200 = 87.5%
Reliability Indicator (%)
An
example
of
reliability
monitored
over a period of 27
months
at
the
Nhlungwane
water
scheme is shown in
Figure 1.
100
80
60
40
20
0
Aug01
Oct01
Dec01
Feb02
Apr02
Jun02
Aug02
Oct02
Dec02
Feb03
Apr03
Jun03
Aug03
Oct03
Figure 1: Example of reliability indicator expressed as tap working days as a percentage
of the maximum that would be achievable. This data was collected at the Nhlungwane
scheme from August 2001 until November 2003. During 2002 and 2003 the scheme
experienced problems with two of its storage reservoirs, which affected reliability.
2.3.3 Source Vulnerability
In many cases the water scheme is reliant on a dam, a spring or a borehole, which must
be monitored to ensure that it is not over exploited. If this is so, then a crucial indicator is
the water level in the dam or borehole, or the flow in the spring.
A good example of the monitoring of such an indicator has been provided by the CSIR’s
groundwater programme (6), who have assisted with the monitoring of a borehole in the
Northern Cape (see Figure 2 below). The record of the water table fluctuation over several
years, plotted in conjunction with the volume of water abstracted from the borehole, shows
clearly the effect of the over-exploitation of this particular source.
Monitoring of boreholes is not that simple to do, although a little planning ahead at the
design stage certainly helps. The borehole must be constructed with a piezometer tube
strapped to the riser column, and this tube must be easily accessible at the head of the
borehole. The internal diameter of the tube must be at least 25 mm in diameter in order to
allow the piezometer (commonly known as a dipper) to be lowered down the borehole to
measure the water depth. Electrical conduiting, uPVC pipe, LDPe and HDPe pipe are all
suitable for piezometer tubes. The tube should extend down the borehole to just above
the pump.
If there is no easily accessible duct through which a dipper can be lowered, it is not
possible to measure the level in a borehole without removing the pump head, which is not
a simple operation. If there is no conduiting provided right down to the pump level, the
chances of the dipper probe being lost in the borehole are good.
Figure 2: Example of effective borehole monitoring and reporting using a graphic method
(Kharkams Tweerivier Borehole Water Level shown with abstraction rates, Ravenscroft,
2005). This figure is an output from the AquiMon software for groundwater management,
which can be obtained free of charge from the Directorate: Information Programmes of the
Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria (Tel. 012 336 7500).
Assuming that access has been provided for a dipper, the next question is when to
measure. The water level in a borehole drops when the pump is running, and “recovers”
when the pump is not running. Whether or not the level recovers fully will depend on
whether the well is being exploited at a sustainable rate, or not. If the borehole is being
exploited within its sustainable yield, but only just, it may take several hours after the pump
has been switched off before the water table recovers completely. If it is a very strongly
yielding well that is being exploited at only a small fraction of its sustainable yield, then it
will typically recover fully in less than an hour.
Therefore the water level one finds when checking a borehole will depend on whether the
pump is on or off, and if off, then it will depend on whether it has been off for a few minutes
or a few hours. If the borehole pump is controlled by a system which regulates pumping
according to the state of the main reservoir (via a signal cable, or a pressure switch, or
telemetry), then the pump will not be on at exactly the same times every day.
There are two possible ways to deal with the uncertainty in borehole water table
monitoring. The one is to require the person doing the measuring to record simply
whether the pump was on or off at the time of the measurement. As one will not know if
the pump has been on or off for minutes or hours, one will expect to see a fairly wide
spread in the data. With enough data one will be able to detect trends in the upper and
lower limits of the readings, i.e. a data envelope should become apparent. If the upper
and lower limits of the envelope are level or stable, then it means that the borehole is
being exploited sustainably. If, however, the upper and lower limits are dropping, then it
means that the borehole is being exploited unsustainably and the pumping hours will need
to be reduced.
The second option, and one which is preferable if one can afford it, is to have a remote
monitoring system installed. Instrumentation is put in measuring whatever one is
interested in (e.g. water level in the well and the flow through the water meter), and these
readings are transmitted either via the cell phone network or via satellite to a receiver
which is operated by the company which did the installation. With this equipment one can
monitor the well from any internet connected computer anywhere. One can then not only
see the detailed trend in the water level fluctuations, but one can see whether the pumps
are running the expected number of hours per day. If they are not, for example if they are
running 24 hours per day, then one knows that something has gone wrong with the pump
control system (e.g. a burst rising main, a broken control valve at the reservoir, a broken
signal cable, or faulty electronics in the pump control panel).
2.3.4 The importance of time-based graphical information
When one is confronted by a page of numbers, in small print, the tendency is for one’s
mind to switch off. Unless one knows exactly what to look for, the tendency is to see
nothing in particular. However, when data is shown graphically, the eye can take in a
whole sequence, with hundreds of data points, at a glance. For example, Figure 3 below
shows the trend in Unaccounted for Water at Emayelisweni, measured as a percentage of
the bulk water purchased. The graph shows over three years of information.
90
80
70
UAW (%)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Aug-99
Mar-00
Oct-00
Apr-01
Nov-01
May-02
Dec-02
Jun-03
Jan-04
Date
Figure 3: Three year trend in Unaccounted-for Water at Emayelisweni
During 2000 and much of 2001 the level of Unaccounted for water was very high, being
between 50% and 80% of the total water supplied. In the second half of 2001 an intensive
training and education programme was launched to motivate and enable the community
water services provider to detect and address leaks in their system. This programme
worked well, and by 2002/2003 the losses had reduced to between 15 and 35% of total
water purchased. This programme has been described by Ross-Jordan (7).
Thus the conversion of data into images enables the reader to absorb, at a glance, the
range and the trend in a particular set of data. This is far more effective than a table of
numbers.
Note that percentage losses, as shown in Figure 3 above, are of use only in examining
trends in a particular scheme over time. In order to assess whether the losses are
reasonable, a far more meaningful and useful indicator is the Infrastructure Leakage Index
(8).
2.3.5 KPI charting at community level
From the discussion in the section above it should be clear that data should be converted
into images wherever possible. How can this be achieved at the level of community level
staff, who seldom have the luxury of computers and printers with which to process data,
assuming they had the skills to use them?
One method is to use a simple standard charting sheet. This sheet has twelve columns, to
enable data to be recorded for each of the twelve months in a year. It has 20 rows, with
no scale marked on the Y-Axis. The scale is worked out with the person responsible for
charting in the field. For example, one might need to show the number of taps in the
scheme, and for this one might need a scale of 0 to 50. On another sheet one might want
to show income, and for this one might need a scale of 0 to 1000. On another sheet one
might want to show supply reliability, and for this the scale would read from 0 to 100%.
Each chart can be given aids to interpretation, such as a red line to show that the
boundary of an undesirable region, and a green line to show the boundary of a healthy
region. This could be used for example if one was plotting costs per kilolitre of water
supplied versus the tariff being charged or the subsidy being received.
The community clerk then uses wax crayons or koki pens to fill in the data month by
month. The graph is displayed on a notice board in the water office, where it can be seen
by all. If a number of the most important graphs are on the wall, the history and status of
the water project can be taken in at a glance.
3.
CONCLUSIONS
In South Africa we have spent over ten billion rands since 1994 on the task of getting
water supply and sanitation to people who previously had no services in rural areas.
However, without monitoring, we cannot say whether the ten million people served since
1994 are getting a reliable service. Therefore, we cannot say whether the money has
been well spent, and we will not learn from our mistakes. More importantly, without an
effective monitoring system in place, basic management of the ongoing operation of
schemes is not possible.
South Africa has seen a number of evaluation and monitoring initiatives in the last five
years. There is a tendency, however, to embark on or promote ambitious monitoring
programmes, with scores of indicators, and this is simply not sustainable in practice (which
is evident from the fact that at present very little monitoring happening). It is better to start
with something simple, and to build up from there. In reality the only successful ongoing
rural water supply monitoring programme which has been observed in the field is that
which was from 2001 until 2005 conducted by Service Support Agents under contract to
the Alfred Nzo Municipality. A further programme that shows great potential as a
management tool is the District Information Management System (DIMS), which has been
piloted by the uThungulu District Municipality, and is at present being rolled out in a further
ten municipalities in KwaZulu-Natal and the Eastern Cape (see www.dims.org.za).
The three most important indicators of a water supply scheme’s health are:
o water quality [where the basic questions are: does it look good? does it taste good?
does it smell good? and is it disinfected? / is the source protection in order?]
o reliability [measured as working tap days as a percentage of the maximum
possible]; and
o source sustainability [where this is an indicator showing either the level in the dam,
the flow in the spring or the level in the borehole, relative to some minimum
allowable level].
REFERENCES
1. Mvula Trust, Developing Community-based Monitoring and Evaluation Tools for
Rural Water and Sanitation Projects. DWAF, JHB. (2000)
2. Pybus, P., Guidelines for the Implementation of Benchmarking Practices in the
Provision of Water Services in South Africa. Water Research Commission, Pretoria.
(2002)
3. Hemson, D., The Sustainability of community water projects in KwaZulu-Natal,
Human Sciences Research Council (2003)
4. Illing, C. and Gibson, J., Rural Water Services Provision by Municipalities and
CBO’s: Performance Milestones and KPIs Proceedings of the WISA Biennial
Conference, Cape Town South Africa (2004)
5. Cairncross & Feachem, Environmental Health Engineering in the Tropics: an
Introductory Text 2nd edition. London: John Wiley & Sons. [also see the fact sheet
by Sandy Cairncross titled Bacteriological testing of water, which can be found on
the website www.lboro.ac.uk/well/resources/fact-sheets.] (1993)
6. Ravenscroft, P., Aquimon Software for Groundwater Management, Department of
Water Affairs and Forestry in conjunction with the Council for Geoscience and
Norad. (2005)
7. Ross-Jordan, J., The Development of a Successful Unaccounted-for Water
Management Programme in the Rural Water Supply Context , unpublished MSc
thesis, Southampton University, United Kingdom (2001)
8. McKenzie R. and Seago C., Benchmarking of leakage from water reticulation
systems in South Africa, Water Research Commission report No. TT 244/05 (2005)
9. Stephen D.A. and Still D.A., Performance Indicators used for a Rural Water Supply
Scheme in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa - a Case Study, proceedings of Theme 7 of
the 10th Congress of the Union of African Water Suppliers, Durban, South Africa,
p24 - p38. (2000)
Acknowledgements:
The author wishes to thank the Water Research Commission for funding the research on
which this paper is based. The full report The use of Key Performance Indicators in the
Benchmarking of Rural Water Supply Schemes by D.A. Still and A.F. Balfour, project
K5/1222/01, will be published in 2006.