A few weeks back I published the Smart Meter Service Map. At the time I had provided a link to a PDF version. I have had a few people ask so click on the link to access the PowerPoint version. Please forgive my basic PowerPoint skills.

You may note the map has changed a little. This was a result of some of your feedback. I liked the comment about having the Customer Experience line in the centre of the map. I have not had time to get to that yet. These last few weeks of ‘virtual feedback’ has reinforced the power of this model.  It triggers conversation and that is where the real value is created.

The Smart Meter Services Map focuses on one dimension. What services we want to deliver. It does not provide a lens on when we need to deliver the service.

This is where the Smart Meter Transformation Map, or T-Map, comes into play. It is another tool I have found useful. I must stress these tools are to provoke conversation, on their own they add little value.

Over time I have added some extra dimensions to the T-Map. This has been the result of conversations with various stakeholders. Some services need to be further explored before a Utility commits funds to it. Some services may have an opportunity identified but technical concerns need to be addressed through a pilot.

The Services Map has four categories. These can change, but I found them useful in conversations:

  1. Uncertain opportunity. A placeholder for opportunities that need to be further explored before committing funds to them.
  2. Pilot to determine value. Services where an opportunity exists, but there is still much uncertainty. A pilot helps clarify technical feasibility, costs and benefits.
  3. Value add services. Services that will deliver value. Usually has direct link with the business case.
  4. Core services. These are the services that are the foundations to all value add services. They must be in place before you can introduce value add services.

I have mixed up the Service categories for the template provided. This has been deliberate as it is not meant to represent a specific Utility.

I often get asked about how dependencies are represented in this model. We have played with this. It may suit some situations but I have found it makes the diagram look too complex and it loses its value. This is of course personal preference.

I have found the greatest value comes from aligning the expectations of Executives. So all are clear on what gets delivered, when. I have seen the same value when aligning Executives with the Program Delivery Team. Finally, I have seen it help in the tender process. So the bidders are clear on what Services the Utility plans to deliver and when.

However you decide to use this T-Map, I hope it is of some use and I welcome any feedback.