Customer-centric asset management: an approach and applying it in practice
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Looking across the regulatory regimes and changes that have occurred across gas, electricity and water sectors, there is a clear shift in regulators' focus and ability to articulate the importance of the customer; and in a way that meaningfully will impact how asset management and operations function and ultimately their bottom line. Utilities are ever more connected to their customer through formal channels, but social media informal channels are increasingly playing a role. Compared across all sectors, utility customer satisfaction is one of the lowest, alongside retail banking and local government service provision. Place this data point alongside the clear intent of regulators and there is, for most utility organisations, a need to adopt a customer-focused attitude to enterprise asset management. This paper will argue that although there have been significant investments by asset and operations functions in improving how they operate (with significant investments in process, systems and trying various sourcing strategies), many are only now starting to seriously engage in the debate about customer needs and impacts from an asset and operational perspective. In discussions with clients, and others in the industry supply chain, it is clear that there is a need to shift the debate to investment planning and operational delivery which truly delivers an acceptable customer experience and is built on customer willingness to pay. This paper will explain, based on customer service improvement programmes in blue collar environments (across utilities and other comparable sectors) an approach taken by utility companies to determine and then enhance their customers' experience of how they invest, maintain and operate assets. This experience covers understanding customer journeys, how this impacts operational processes and systems, challenges the organisations' culture and behaviours and how ultimately it may need to reflect asset investment planning and investment priorities. (3 pages)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it