Customer Feedback For Water Quality Monitoring PDF

water quality issues
BY ANDREW J. WHELTON, ANDREA M. DIETRICH,

DANIEL L. GALLAGHER, AND J. ALAN ROBERSON
Using customer feedback

for improved
water quality
and infrastructure
monitoring
s early as 500 BC, drinking water appearance, taste, and odor
characteristics were used to assess drinking water quality and
safety. In the 1850s, John Snow assessed customer illness
reports to determine that a pump on Broad Street in London,
England, was contaminated with cholera and was causing illness and fatalities (Hall & Dietrich, 2000). Over the next 150 years, scientific exploration uncovered water treatment and distribution techniques
that would eventually provide safe drinking water to
millions of people worldwide. In addition to these
developments, researchers established relationships
C U S TO M E R F E E D BA C K C A N B E A VA L UA B L E TO O L B U T O N LY
among drinking water infrastructure, treatment
I F U T I L I T I E S E F F E C T I V E LY M A N A G E T H I S I N F O R M AT I O N .
operations, water quality, waterborne disease, and
population health. Many of the waterborne disease
incidents chronicled in affluent countries during the
past 30 years were first detected when customers complained about
odd tastes, odors, and illnesses (Hrudey & Hrudey, 2004; Craun &
Calderon, 2001; Payment et al, 1997). Significant technological advances
in water treatment and distribution have been achieved, but an important resource for water utilities is one that is often overlooked. Utility
customerswho are located throughout the distribution systemcan
play an important role as monitors for water quality and public health.
CUSTOMER INPUT CAN PROVIDE EARLY INDICATION OF PROBLEMS

Outside the drinking water industry, customer input is often used as
a valuable indicator of product safety and quality. Today, large and
small distributors, manufacturers, and retailers rely on customer feedback to identify products and services that are defective or of decreased
2007 American Water Works Association
62
NOVEMBER 2007 | JOURNAL AWWA 99:11 | PEER-REVIEWED | WHELTON ET AL
quality. Many of these companies

demonstrate that they value customer
feedback by advertising how concerned customers can contact them.
These companies subsequently catalog, investigate, and resolve the issues
to make certain their products do not
decrease customer satisfaction, pose
health risks, or affect product sales.
Other benefits of proactive customer
monitoring programs include increased customer loyalty, better
process control, improved product
quality, and protection of the companys public image (Estelami, 2000;
Mitchell, 1993; Halstead & Page,
1992; Reichheld & Sasser, 1990).
Water providers can use customer
feedback to improve service and safeguard supplies. As in the commercial sector, many water utilities rely
on customer feedback to improve
their products and services. Water
quality and pressure complaints
have been used to detect changes in
source water quality, measure the
effectiveness of hydrant flushing programs, and determine where main
breaks have occurred (Taylor et al,
2006; Kirmeyer et al, 2000; Rashash
et al, 1996; Mallevialle & Suffet,
1987). Water quality complaints also
have been used to monitor treatment operations and quantify the
extent of distribution and water
quality problems (Dietrich, 2006;
McGuire et al, 2005; Khiari et al,
2002; Burlingame & Anselme,
1995). Several utilities have even
had customers warn them about
attempted break-ins (Whelton &
Cooney, 2004; Whelton et al, 2004).
Many disease outbreaks have been
preceded by customer complaints
about aesthetic water quality problems, particularly when changes in
chlorinous odors were involved
(Hrudey & Hrudey, 2007). Because
customers provide useful descriptive information from a water quality and infrastructure surveillance
perspective, research around the
world has centered on identifying
off-flavors caused by distribution
system material (Heim & Dietrich,
2007; Rogers et al, 2004; Rigal &
A standardized list of descriptors can facilitate data management when customers call their
utility with complaints about the appearance of their water.
Danjou, 1999; Burlingame et al,

1994; Rigal, 1992), particulate matter in distribution and tap waters
(Booth & Brazos, 2004), and taste
and odor monitoring at the treatment plant and the tap (Dietrich,
2006; McGuire et al, 2005; Dietrich et al, 2004; Burlingame et al,
1992; Bartels et al, 1986).
Within the past five years, feedback
from drinking water customers has
taken on a surveillance aspect to
become an essential tool for water system monitoring (Roberson & Morley,
2005; USEPA, 2005; Whelton &
Cooney, 2004; Whelton et al, 2004;
USEPA, 2003; Whelton, 2003). These
reports defined the critical components
of a customer feedback surveillance
system as a single point of contact,
effective data reception, established
investigation and analyses procedures
and protocols, effective electronic data
management, automated and integrated analyses, educated consumers,
trained and committed personnel, and
continuous assessment, improvement,
and training. A competent customer
feedback surveillance system should
stress the need for standardized data
reception, handling, data analysis, and
utility response.
Because of its historical usefulness and perceived value, customer

feedback deserves increased scrutiny
as a utility monitoring tool. From a
practical standpoint, customer feedback is processed directly by the utility and has the potential to accelerate detection of water contamination
or operational failures. Drinking
water customers essentially can serve
as onsite monitors located throughout the distribution system; their
number and dispersion throughout
the system are prime advantages to
the monitoring process. During
emergency situations, utility management, public health officials, and
emergency responders may use customer information to determine the
extent of population exposure to
contaminated drinking water and to
identify valve closures for isolation
and containment.
Customer complaints have become
an officially recognized monitoring tool.
The US Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) has incorporated
customer complaints as part of a multifaceted contaminant warning system that also includes water quality
monitoring and notification by public health or law enforcement agen-

WHELTON ET AL | PEER-REVIEWED | 99:11 JOURNAL AWWA | NOVEMBER 2007
63
Drinking water customers (and their

taps) are located throughout the
distribution system. In essence, each
represents an online monitor and
opportunity for customer feedback.
cies (USEPA, 2005). For certain

classes of compounds, customer complaints have the advantage of facilitating relatively early detection compared with laboratory analyses or
clinical diagnoses and thus allow for
a more rapid response. With regard
to taste- and odor-generating com-
pounds, customers are often more

sensitive than standard laboratory
tests and instrumentation. Examples
of USEPA programs incorporating
customer complaints include the
Response Protocol Toolbox (USEPA,
2003) and Water Security Initiative
(USEPA, 2005).
FIGURE 1 Causes of 21 drinking water incidents detected

by customer feedback warnings19772003
Distributionrelated facility
failure
9%
Water treatment
related facility
failure
9%
Intentional
injection
5%
Accidental
backflow
41%
Source
contamination
9%
Operationscaused problems
27%
64
Customer complaint management

serves as only one of several monitoring techniques necessary for a complete early warning system. Water
quality complaints are triggered by
changes in visual appearance (such as
color and clarity) or other sensory
aspect (such as taste and odor). Only
certain compounds can impart a
detectable taste and odor; these compounds include organics such as petroleum products and some pesticides as
well as certain metals and inorganics
(Allgeier & Murray, 2005). Sensory
detection limits vary considerably
across individuals (Lawless & Heymann, 1998), and published limits
can vary widely depending on the
method used to analyze the data (Gallagher & Cuppett, 2007).
Project focused on a single goal and
three objectives. The goal of this project was to develop an effective framework for managing customer feedback to monitor water quality,
quantity, aesthetics, security and
water-related illness. Project objectives were to:
conduct a literature review to
identify types and uses of customer
feedback for utility monitoring,
evaluate existing utility practices for handling customer feedback
information, and
identify the actions necessary
to effectively integrate customer feedback into utility monitoring.
Different utilities use different
names for various departments. In
this article operations refers to the
department responsible for the daily
production and delivery functions of
the supply source, treatment facilities, and distribution system. Water
quality department refers to the section responsible for regulatory com-
2.0
Turbidityntu
A
South plant
North plant
1.5
1.0
0.5
April 30
April 24
April 20
April 12
April 6
March 31
March 25
March 19
March 13
March 7
March 1
0.0
Tubidity Readingdate
50
B
South plant
North plant
40
30
20
10
April 12
April 20
April 24
April 30
April 12
April 20
April 24
April 30
April 6
March 31
March 25
March 19
March 13
March 7
March 1
Complaintdate
7
C
South nursing home
North nursing home
6
5
4
3
2
1
April 6
March 31
March 25
March 19
March 13
March 7
0
March 1
Customer input has helped pinpoint

problems. The authors conducted a
review of the literature dating back
nearly 30 years and encompassing
peer-reviewed journals and government, trade/industry, and research
foundation publications. They identified 61 examples in which customer
feedback was a utilitys first indicator
that something was wrong with its
infrastructure, operations, or drinking water. Of these 61 cases, 40 were
compiled by Thompson and Jenkins
(1987) and dealt with tastes and odors
caused by permeation of petroleum
through plastic drinking water pipe.
The remaining 21 incidents were individually described in the published literature and included reports of drinking water with off-tastes, odors,
appearance, and perceived customer
illness (Figure 1). An analysis of these
incidents found that customer feedback helped utility staff
identify the problem cause and
source,
isolate the contaminated water,
estimate the population affected,
take action to protect the unexposed population, and
help estimate the amount of
infrastructure that needed cleaning.
These feedback warnings uncovered water contamination at elementary schools, public water fountains,
customer residences, commercial
buildings, county fairs, mines, and
health clinics in towns, cities, and
countries worldwide. Two of the incidents are discussed in detail in the
following sections.
Increased call volume signaled
decreased water quality. Retrospectively,
investigators discovered that the 1993
Milwaukee,Wis., outbreak of cryptosporidiosis was preceded by an
increased number of customer calls to
the water utility immediately after the
water treatment system failed. As
shown in Figure 2, calls per day in-
Callsnumber
LITERATURE REVIEW HIGHLIGHTED

VALUE OF CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
FIGURE 2 Comparison of water quality, customer

complaint, and diarrheal illness data from the
investigation of the 1993 Cryptosporidium
outbreak in Milwaukee, Wis.
Diarrheaper 100 residents
pliance testing and customer response

to the source, treatment, and distribution system beyond operations.
Symptom Onsetdate
Reprinted with permission of Proctor et al, 1998.
Outcome trends for: daily maximum effluent turbidity at treatment
plants (A), daily number of customer complaints received (B), and
daily prevalence of nursing home diarrhea rates per 100 residents (C).
creased from a background mean of

05 calls to a maximum of 45 calls
(Proctor et al, 1998). The increased
call volume signified that customers
received water of decreased quality,
but this feedback warning was not dis-
covered until after the outbreak had

been confirmed. The exact types of
customer concerns were never reported;
however, on the basis of past biological water contamination occurrences
first detected by receiving customer

65
feedback, the Milwaukee complaints

likely centered on discoloration (Jones
& Roworth, 1996; Short, 1988).
Intentional contamination came to
light because of customer watchfulness. Customer feedback also helped
uncover an incident of intentional
drinking water contamination
(Moser, 2005). In 1980, reports of
keroseneinsecticide odor and milky
water appearance led Pennsylvanian
utility and emergency response investigators to the discovery that someone had intentionally injected a pesticide into the water distribution
system. Customer feedback data not
only helped detect the contaminated
water but also helped pinpoint its
location and the population affected,
identify valves to be closed for containment, and characterize the
unknown contaminants through the
descriptions provided by customers.
UTILITY VISITS AND INTERVIEWS

OFFER INSIGHT INTO HANDLING
CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
Visit and interview methods
described. Site visits were conducted
at 13 utilities across the United States
TABLE 1
(seven in the Southeast, four in the

mid-Atlantic region, and one each in
the West and Southwest). One of the
utilities was a wholesaler. The types
of source water included surface
water, groundwater, and desalinated
water. Utilities were selected on the
basis of their willingness to participate and their previous experience
with receiving and recording feedback from drinking water customers.
Although these 13 medium- and
large-size utilities represented a small
percentage of the entire utility population, they demonstrated an array
of operating, treatment, production,
administration, financial, and service
population characteristics (Table 1).
Interviews and facility tours were
conducted during every site visit. The
project team interviewed personnel
responsible for all facets of utility
administration, customer service,
engineering, information technology,
laboratory operations, operations
and maintenance, security, water
quality, and water treatment. Personnel at each utility were asked a
set of 30 standardized questions that
were developed based on the guid-
Characteristics of 13 participating utilities

Characteristic
Population served
Median Value (Range)

500,000 (30,0008,000,000)
Finished water productionmgd
21 (101,600)
Length of distribution mainsmi
1,880 (1806,000)
Number of fire hydrants
8,178 (0108,000)
Number of finished water pump stations

Number of finished water storage tanks and reservoirs
TABLE 2
3 (0125)
1,880 (3180)
Procedures used by utilities to answer or route initial customer

calls concerning water quality, water quantity, illness, or security
Procedure
Utilities Using
Procedure%
Directly transfer to more appropriate department.
50
Record basic information from customer, and then transfer to more

appropriate department.
42
Record basic information from customer, attempt to answer, and then

transfer if not resolved.
33
Number of utilities responding = 12. Percentages exceed 100% because some utilities used more than one
method to receive and route calls.
66
ance for handling customer feedback

found in the literature and on the
experience of the authors. Major categories for questions included procedures for receiving and tracking
feedback, data storage and analysis,
interaction with external agencies,
and feedback followup and closure.
(Because not all utilities were able to
answer all the questions, the number of responses for each question
varied.) Project team members inventoried each utilitys procedures for
receiving, analyzing, investigating,
and tracking customer feedback.
Tours included visiting the call center
or entry point for consumer calls and
then following the process for handling inquiries through analysis,
response, and resolution.
Paper and electronic customer
feedback records were reviewed. The
authors examined field data sheets,
internal data analyses charts, and
the standard procedures and manuals for handling customer concerns
and complaints. As site visits were
completed, additional questions
were identified by the project team.
To answer these new questions, followup telephone interviews were
conducted with previously visited
utilities.
The detailed onsite interviews
were supplemented with input from
public health officials, epidemiologists, and personnel from other utilities. These experts were asked to
provide insight on the capture, analysis, and filing of drinking water quality, pressure, and illness complaints
to health departments; describe the
procedures used by health departments to handle and/or investigate
such complaints; and comment on
the state of relationships between
health departments and utilities.
Utility site visits uncovered different
approaches. All 13 utilities treated
customer feedback seriously and
most took field samples when water
quality complaints were received (if
the cause of the problem was
unknown). However, not all of the
utility personnel interviewed shared
the belief that customer feedback
could be an indicator of an actual

system problem. Some employees felt
that customer feedback was not as
informative as other data sources
such as on-line monitoring, lab tests,
and surveillance equipment. Although 50% (six of 12) of the utilities had conducted a water security
exercise, no exercise had incorporated customer feedback as a contamination warning. Other utility personnel felt that customers represented
a geographically diverse monitoring
network that provided valuable realtime data on water quality, water
quantity, and infrastructure access.
These utilities were more likely to have
some system in place for handling customer feedback.
Onsite interviews with utility personnel indicated that 19 water system
access and contamination events were
initially detected by customer notifications (Figure 3). Customer concerns prompting investigations
included customer reports of unusual
taste, odor, color, clarity, pressure,
and suspicious activity. These incidents were uncovered at commercial,
public, and residential buildings as
well as hydrants and plant intakes.
Utilities used customer feedback to
alert staff of unauthorized system
access; malfunctioning, damaged, and
improperly installed equipment; and
process failure.
Customer contact points varied by
utility. Telephoning was the most
common method customers used to
communicate drinking water concerns. Utility literature and policies
determined which utility department
received the most customer calls.
Methods for handling customer contacts fell into four categories: the utility had its own call center but no
city/county call center (three of 12);
the utility was serviced by a larger
city/county call center that also handled complaints such as traffic, housing, and sanitation (two of 12);
water-related customer complaints
were answered by multiple call centers, e.g., both utility and city/county
call centers (five of 12); and small
utilities designated treatment plant
FIGURE 3 Customer feedback descriptors used by

utilities to detect 19 contamination and
infrastructure-access incidents19902005
Suspicious
activity
11%
Water-associated
illness
5%
Insufficient
pressure/flow
37%
Unusual
taste/odor
21%
Unusual
appearance
26%
personnel as the primary customer

contact point (two of 12).
When multiple call centers were
in place, customer calls to the nonutility center were usually transferred
to the utility, thus creating an additional time lag. Because customer
service representatives at the nonutility call centers had less training in
water-related issues, they could provide little information to the customer. Most utilities did not provide
training or scripts to these external
call centers to aid in responding to
water-related calls.
Even with these categories, additional points of contact were usually available. Occasionally, customers bypassed call centers and
directly contacted personnel in specific departments such as water quality, operations, the directors office,
geographic information system
(GIS)/ mapping, information technology, public affairs, the laboratory, and construction. Telephone
numbers used by customers were
obtained from the utility website,
telephone book, or water bills, or
the customer had been provided
with an employee telephone number during a previous call. At one
facility, more than 13 utility tele-
phone numbers were available for

customers to call for issues related to
drinking water. This overabundance
of choices led to customers calling
the wrong department and forced
the utility employees receiving these
calls to transfer the customer to the
department the employee deemed
appropriate. Repeated transfers
among departments sometimes
resulted in customers becoming
angry and/or hanging up (and a consequent loss of data). In general, if
the call was transferred from
another agency, the callers information was not entered into the utilitys official database by the person
who ultimately took the call.
In addition to calling, customers
notified utilities about their drinking
water concerns by e-mail messages,
online question submission forms,
and letters via US mail as well as in
person at utility offices and official
public meetings. Utilities typically
responded to phone calls more
quickly than e-mail, even though
many utilities reported the increasing use of e-mail by customers.
Customers also reported drinking
water quality and system concerns
to the fire, health, and police departments; the 911 system; and the offices

67
of the county commissioner, sheriff,

mayor, or city hall. With the exception of customer concerns reported to
the health department, these external agency calls were typically forwarded to the water utility directors
office or the utility call center.
Recording of customer feedback
varied as well. Practices for recording customer data were a function
of the utility representatives experience and utilitywide policies (if any).
Information related to customer concerns was not always recorded into a
utility electronic or paper file during
the initial contact (Table 2). This
informal approach to receiving and
handling customer concerns resulted
in lost data. Decisions about where to
forward calls were based primarily
on the call receivers experience, training, and knowledge of the utility.
TABLE 3
It was a common utility staff practice to request additional information from the customer concerning
the nature of the customers complaint. The following examples represent the types of questions that customers were asked.
Can you describe the problem?
Is the problem at one faucet or
throughout the building?
When did you first notice the
problem?
Is the problem in both the hot
and cold water?
Has there been any recent
plumbing work done on the
premises?
Has the water heater been
turned off?
Are you new to the premises?
Have you noticed any unusual
tastes or odors in the water?
Categories used at four utilities to describe customer-reported

water quality problems20022006*
Customer-Reported Problems
Classified in Category%
Problem Category
Utility A
Utility B
Chlorine
Sulfur/sewage
42
Metallic
Earthy/musty
Solvent/gasoline
Cloudy
10
Rusty
11
Sediments
Particles
Utility C
Utility D
2
55
11
Black
Green
Blue
Yellow
Health
Odor
19
Taste
Appearance
5
32
General water quality
24
Other taste and odor
19
Other or not available
33
Cross connection
7
1
Reclaim
Total
55
1
100
100
100
100
*No data indicates data not collected or category not used.
68
What is the phone number at

which a utility representative can
reach you today?
Sometimes during the initial contact, the call receivers would attempt
to answer customer concerns based
on their experience or utility scripts.
Almost 50% of the utility call centers
(six of 13) used scripts or customer
troubleshooting manuals to help staff
handle customer inquires. Scripts contained guidance on how to troubleshoot and solve by phone such
common customer concerns as air in
water and clogged aerators. Of the
utilities that used scripts, 67% (four of
six) provided them in paper form,
whereas 33% (two of six) used electronic and/or web-based scripts. Electronic and/or web-based scripts were
strongly praised for their usefulness
in troubleshooting customer concerns.
Lack of uniform coding and terminology undermine datas usefulness.
Currently the water industry does
not have established standards for
coding or handling customer feedback data. Table 3 shows the categories used at four utilities to record
customer feedback related to water
quality. Different utilities chose to
focus on different customer feedback
details. For instance, utility D in
Table 3 used only broad categories
such as odor, taste, appearance, and
other. Utilities A and B, on the other
hand, included specific aesthetic
descriptors such as chlorinous tastes
and odors. Utility C tracked four possible colors of water. Overall,
between 10 and 197 different categories were used at the 13 utilities
visited.
Although the information that
was recorded undoubtedly proved
valuable from operations and investigation perspectives, the broad variability of the data made them difficult to analyze and manage and
severely limited integration of customer feedback into a utilitywide
monitoring system. The types and
number of categories used did not
correlate with system size or complexity but were based on utility
experience and the personal prefer-
ences of the utility personnel who

created the categories. At some facilities, categories were added as staff
deemed appropriate. When interviewed, several call center representatives indicated that they chose
categories with which they were
most familiar.
There are two distinct issues involved with the terminology used to
record consumer feedback. The first
centers on the lack of consistency
(and the overabundance) of the
descriptors used by utility staff. As
an example, utility staffers used at
least 13 descriptors to describe water
that appeared black or contained
something black (i.e., bl, black, black
flakes, black particles, black pc, black
plastic pc, black slime, black soot,
black specks, black stains, black substance, black oily stuff, and black/
brown) and nine descriptors to describe water containing a chlorinous
characteristic (chlorine, chlorinous,
chlorine/sulfur, Cl2, Cl2, Cl2 [bad],
Cl2 high, strong bleach, and strong
Cl2). Many descriptions included misspellings, which occurred because the
data entry procedure allowed staff to
enter descriptors directly rather than
having them select from a limited predefined list. Because of the number of
categories, similar customer concerns
were coded differently at the same
utility, which made the data both
unmanageable and less useful. Descriptive information as a comment
in text form is helpful from a troubleshooting perspective but cumbersome from a data-coding and analysis
perspective. The number of codes
must be limited, consistent, and easy
to manage.
A second issue relates to the lack
of a standardized industrywide terminology for customer feedback categories and descriptors that would
TABLE 4
Methods for storing customer feedback data
Method
Utilities Using Method%
Paper files
75
Spreadsheets
42
Database on one computer, not networked
33
Central database on networked computer
17
Number of utilities responding = 12; percentages exceed 100% because some utilities used more than
one method to store customer feedback data.
TABLE 5
Current and desired methods for integrating customer feedback

data with utility operation and monitoring systems
Percent Responding%
Customer Feedback Data Linkages
Current
Desired
Total
Work order or asset management system
77
23
100
Geographic information system/facility drawings
15
62
77
Water quality data on maps
46
46
Operations activities on maps
38
38
Hydraulic water quality modeling
23
23
Medical syndromic surveillance data
Number of utilities responding = 13; results indicate percent of utilities that currently implement or
would like to implement a specific customer feedback integration action.
facilitate sharing data with other utilities and agencies such as public
health and municipal services. The
increased use of water wholesaling,
consecutive systems, and interconnected systems makes the case for
using consistent terminology across
utilities. The public health field has
faced this challenge and developed a

set of categories that allow data to
be transferred and shared. An example is Health Level 7, which organizes health problems according to
seven basic categories: gastrointestinal, constitutional, rash, respiratory,
hemorrhagic, botulinic, and neuro-
Utilities need to hear from customers

whenever customers have problems
with their drinking water, such as this
tap water sample contaminated by
particulate manganese.
69
logical (RODS Laboratory, 2006).

The taste and odor wheel, which was
based on a concept from the food
and beverage industry, is an example of an accepted water industry set
of descriptors (Khiari et al, 2002;
Suffet et al, 1999; Burlingame et al,
1991). Development and use of uniform terminology for consumer complaints would greatly aid the water
industry in effectively managing consumer feedback.
Data storage and integration were
inconsistent. At 75% (nine of 12) of
the utilities interviewed, customer
feedback data were tracked and
stored with paper files at some time
during customer contact, most commonly when the call was first received. Often data were later transferred to electronic storage. Utilities
frequently discarded customer feedback data between six months and
four years after reception. The lack
of historical data made it difficult
to detect trends and determine what
variations were routine at the utilities. Discarding customer complaint

data is not acceptable in Pennsylvania and Tennessee because these
states require water utilities to store
public utility service complaints for
more than five years (Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1999; Tennessee DEC, 1999).
Most utilities used both an electronic and a paper file to track and
store consumer complaints (Table 4),
but one utility reported using a central database on a networked computer. The variety of filing and storage processes suggests that utilitywide
integration of customer feedback data
will be difficult and may require substantial upgrades to make data accessible to multiple users. Of those utilities using electronic storage, nearly
half had customer feedback linked
into their work order management
system. Links into asset management
systems (33% or four of 12) and GIS
(17% or two of 12) were less com-
FIGURE 4 The filter, funnel, and focus approach to customer feedback data
optimization
Primary source:
Water utility call center
Funnel
Secondary source:
other agencies
Nonwater quality
related calls
Secondary source:
other utility departments
Data Enhancement
Telephone Menu
Navigation
Telephone
menu system
Filter
Water qualityrelated feedback

Complaint time and frequency
Nonwater quality
related calls
(staff evaluated)
Call Center Logging

Call center
Water qualityrelated feedback

(staff evaluated)
Focus
Work Requests and

Feedback Database
Feedback
database
Work order
Water quality related complaint

Location
Water quality category
70
mon. Table 5 shows the current and

desired integration of customer feedback data with other systems. Linkage with GIS was the most commonly desired upgrade.
Relationships and communications
with other agencies often fell short.
Communication between health
departments and water utilities needs
much improvement, especially with
regard to concerns about waterrelated illness. Although no utility
recorded a water system malfunction
that caused customer health problems, illness complaints constituted 2
and 8% of total water quality concerns reported at two large utilities.
Surprisingly, 83% (10 of 12) of the
utilities did not have procedures for
contacting the health department
when a water-related illness complaint was filed. Even more surprising was the fact that several health
departments received complaints
about drinking water quality (e.g.,
appearance, illness, taste, and odor)
and investigated these matters without contacting the utility.
Relationships between law enforcement and utility personnel also
varied. After an attempted intrusion
at one utilitys intake facility, law
enforcement was unable to increase
surveillance because of insufficient
resources. Some utility personnel
felt that police departments in general were too busy with their core
duties to assume responsibility for
investigating suspicious activities
around or vandalism of hydrants.
In some cases, the perpetrators had
left the scene by the time police
arrived. One utility had its own
police force, which focused on utility issues and greatly improved
response time.
Customers sometimes proved to
be reliable watchdogs and willing to
report suspicious activity. Public
awareness of formal utility hydrant
permit and access programs greatly
reduced unauthorized access. At one
utility, two individuals attempting to
steal water were apprehended by law
enforcement personnel thanks to customer tipoffs.
BETTER MANAGEMENT
OF CUSTOMER FEEDBACK
CAN ENHANCE ITS VALUE
Given the potential contribution of
customer feedback, utilities that want
to improve drinking water system surveillance should focus on improving
their systems for handling customer
feedback. Utilities can control how they
handle and process customer feedback,
thus increasing its value as an aid in
detecting and responding to problems.
Funnel, filter, and focus. One

method utilities can implement to
effectively harness customer feedback
data is the funnel, filter, focus approach (Figure 4). Utilities funnel all
customer feedback by designating
one phone number and one e-mail
address for customers to report
drinking water concerns. Staff receiving calls should initially filter the
customer contacts by resolving concerns for which they are trained and
then categorizing the remaining calls

and forwarding them to appropriate
personnel. Those employees can then
focus on gathering in-depth information in order to resolve the problem. This information can come from
the customer, possible field samples,
or on-line monitoring. This funnel,
filter, and focus strategy is currently
being applied at a large utility
through USEPAs Water Security Initiative program.
FIGURE 5 The three-tiered approach to customer feedback data coding
Call taker
Operations
Suspicious
activity
Facilities
Hydrants
Storage tanks
Intake
Buildings
Fencing
Other
Pressure
No water
Low pressure
High pressure
Other
Other:
inquiry billing,
meter reading
Water quality
Appearance
Taste and odor
Cloudy/milky
Rusty
Floating particles
Settling particles
Red/brown
Black
White
Green/blue
Other
Sweet
Sour
Bitter
Salty
Metallic
Earty/musty
Septic/sulfur
Chemical/medicinal
Chlorine/bleach
Gasoline
Other
Illness
Miscellaneous
Skin/rash
Diarrhea/stomach
Headaches/dizzy
Fever/flu
Cough/breathing
Bleeding
Vision/speech
Pet/animal
Stains
Scale/spots
Plant/garden
Other
The basis of this approach is also shown in Table 6 and Figure 6. Facility descriptors are based on the US Environmental Protection Agency
Response Protocol Toolbox (USEPA, 2003). Taste and odor descriptors are based on the taste and odor wheel (Suffet et al, 1999). Illness
descriptors are adapted from accepted categories of Health Level 7 (RODS Laboratory, 2006). All other descriptors were compiled from utility
site visits and literature data.

71
Utility customers are a diverse

collection of individuals who
all desire and depend on safe,
reliable drinking water.
Establish clear procedures for

managing of customer feedback data.
Customer feedback management
does not fit neatly into most utilities organizational structure. Data
entry must be a shared responsibility among the call center, water
quality, and operations divisions.
Analysis of feedback should routinely be performed by water quality personnel, but the operations
TABLE 6
department also needs to evaluate

feedback for reliability, maintenance, and infrastructure access
information. (This kind of implementation depends on the facilitys
size and organizational structure.)
A standard utilitywide policy
should specify systematic procedures
for logging calls and investigating,
resolving, and closing out each type
of customer drinking water concern.
All employees receiving

calls and e-mails should
be trained according to
the utilitys policy for handling customer feedback.
Improvements to existing customer feedback
data collection include
creating a template for
data entry, developing
consistent terminology,
and networking with
other databases. The ease
and associated cost may depend on
whether the utility uses proprietary
data management software. Recent
research has demonstrated that links
to other information systems such
as GIS and work orders can
improve analyses and help show
customer concerns geographically
(Mikol, 2006).
Some utilities attempt to use their
existing service request and/or work
Examples of the three-tiered approach to coding of actual customer feedback data
Customer Problem Reported
Tier 1 Classification
Selected
Tier 2 Category
Selected
Tier 3 Descriptors
Selected
Neighborhood watch concerned about an existing

hydrant connection
Engineering/distribution
Facility
Vehicles/equipment
Water dribbling, sputtering out of faucet
Pressure/flow
Other
No water
Pressure/flow
No water
Rocks in urinal drain, toilets running continuously,

no water in urinals
Pressure/flow
No water; other
Low pressure
Pressure/flow
Low pressure
Clogged water filters
Pressure/flow
Other
Grease on skin after showering, black particles,

brown water
Water quality
Appearance
Black, red/brown, other
Discolored water
Water quality
Appearance
Cloudy/milky
Oil seen in water
Water quality
Appearance
Floating particles
Water caused burning eyes and skin
Water quality
Illness
Skin/rash, vision/speech
Funny odor in water
Water quality
Taste/odor
Chemical/medicinal
The basis of the three-tiered approach to customer feedback data coding is also shown in Figures 5 and 6.
72
order system to track customer

feedback. Most computerized work
order systems allow for complete
express mail type of tracking, but
less-sophisticated systems may lose
the service request when it is transferred from the call center to operations or water quality personnel.
Additionally, many work request systems were not designed and cannot
easily be adapted to collect the type
of information required to categorize and evaluate customer feedback.
In order to manage both work orders
and customer feedback, the corresponding data management systems
must be linked and integrated.
To optimize the power of customer feedback analyses, a historical record of customer feedback
data is needed. Current data can
then be compared with the patterns
and variability of the historical
record to determine if a problem
exists. Utilities should store customer feedback data in an easily
analyzable form for an indefinite
period of time. This storage can be
accomplished by recording customer
feedback in electronic spreadsheets
or databases.
Utilities also need formal guidelines that designate which department is responsible for reviewing different aspects of the data and how
often this review should be performed. Automated and computerized statistical analysis such as that
used in the health profession (Heffernan et al, 2004) can assist in the
routine evaluation of complaint frequency and type.
Standardize terminology. In order
to integrate customer feedback into
utility monitoring, the industry must
adopt a standard terminology. On
the basis of the literature review
results, utility data, and utility staff
recommendations, the authors propose a three-tiered approach to data
coding (Figure 5). The first tier provides four classifications under which
customer feedback can be categorized: suspicious activity, operations,
water quality, and other issues (e.g.,
billing, meter reading, general
FIGURE 6 Proposed check sheet for the drinking water industry

PWSID No. 000000000
Water Plant #: (000) 000 - 0000

Customer Service #: (000) 000 - 0000
RECEIVING INFORMATION
Customer Name:
Date:
Follow-Up Needed?
Yes / No
Go to Work Order
Address:
Telephone:
Time:
Department Notified? Yes / No
CODING
OPERATIONS
WATER QUALITY
WATER QUALITY
FACILITY ISSUES
TASTE AND ODOR ISSUES
MISCELLANEOUS ISSUES
Descriptor
Descriptor
Descriptor
Hydrant
Storage Tank
Intake
Building
Fencing
Other
Sweet
Sour
Bitter
Salty
Metallic
Earthy/Musty
Septic / Sulfur
Chemical / Medicinal
Chlorine / Bleach
Gasoline
Other
Pet / animal
Stains
Scale / spots
Plant / garden
Other
PRESSURE ISSUES
Descriptor
No Water
Low Pressure
High Pressure
Other
SUSPICIOUS ACTIVITY
COMMENTS
ILLNESS ISSUES
Descriptor
WATER QUALITY
APPEARANCE ISSUES
Descriptor
Cloudy / Milky
Rusty
Floating particles
Settling particles
Red / Brown
Black
White
Green / Blue
Other
Skin / Rash
Diarrhea/ Stomachache
Headache / Dizzy
Fever / Flu
Cough / Breathing
Bleeding
Vision / Speech
Other
(additional description space should be

available on backside of paper)
Water Investigation ID No. 000000000
The basis of this approach is also shown in Table 6 and Figure 5.
inquiries). The second tier features

six categories: facility, pressure, appearance, taste and odor, illness, and
miscellaneous. The final tier provides
category-specific descriptors.
Although the three-tiered approach
proposed in Figure 5 can be adapted
to fit the needs of an individual utility,
any modifications should attempt to
preserve consistent terminology. For
this article, tiers 2 and 3 deal only
with operations and water quality, but
the concept could be expanded to
include other classifications. Table 6
demonstrates how this approach can
be implemented stepwise using actual
customer feedback data. Many utilities
could improve their data quality simply by modifying their existing electronic or paper coding approaches.
Several of the proposed classifications and categories have existing
standards to include taste and odor,
illness, and facility issues. Taste and
odor can be categorized according
to the widely used taste and odor
wheel (Khiari et al, 2002; Suffet et
al, 1999). Accepted illness descrip-
tions have been well-defined by

Health Level 7 and the International
Classification of Diseases, Ninth
Revision, Clinical Modification codes
that are used by healthcare experts
and information scientists (RODS
Laboratory, 2006; USDHHS, 2005).
Facility descriptions are provided in
the USEPA Response Protocol Toolbox (USEPA, 2003). In general, however, description standards are lacking for pressure, appearance, and
other miscellaneous issues (e.g., spots,
noisy pipes).
Create a water industry check sheet.
In addition to the three-tiered datacoding framework, the authors propose a water industry check sheet to
standardize descriptions of customerreported drinking water issues (Figure 6). The six major categories are
facility, pressure, appearance, taste
and odor, illness, and miscellaneous.
Descriptors such as no water,
cholorine/bleach, and skin/rash are
provided.
The recording and data-capture
process would begin with comple-

73
tion of this check sheet, which could

then provide a data stream for early
warning of possible water contamination or malicious infrastructure
access. Such a check sheet would be
useful for utilities that rely on paper
forms to initially capture caller information or as a design template for
facilities using electronic capture. A
consistent set of descriptors in check
sheet format would allow for easy
data entry, automated analysis, report
creation, and early warning detection. Once adopted, this check sheet
could be converted into an online
tracking portal. Sample versions of
the check sheet and an explanation
of how it is used could be sent to customers to illustrate the types of
descriptive information the utility is
looking for when a problem crops
up. These actions would not only
improve data quality but also demonstrate that the utility takes customer
feedback seriously.
When multiple descriptions are
used for the same underlying problem
(as shown by the numerous descriptors for black and chlorinous
cited previously), utility staff must
sort through the complaints and
make a judgment call on each in
order to perform any detailed analysis or classification. If a limited and
consistent set of descriptors was used,
graphs, statistical analyses, and
reports could be automatically created using computer software. Utilities could then redirect their resources
toward improving service rather than
correcting and organizing data. As
data analysis becomes more routine
and less time-consuming, it also
becomes more valuable.
In the health field, syndromic surveillance programs serve as early
warning systems for disease outbreaks
by monitoring activities such as emergency room visits, over-the-counter
drug sales, and school and work
absenteeism (Berger et al, 2006;
RODS Laboratory, 2006; Fleming et
al, 2003; Henning, 2003). Examples
of syndromic surveillance programs
include Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Com-
munity-based Epidemics (USDOD,

2006) and Real-time Outbreak and
Disease Surveillance (RODS Laboratory, 2006). One key requirement is
the use of standardized categories and
descriptors so that the data can be
analyzed and shared; in the water
industry, a check sheet for customer
concerns could provide the start of an
early warning system.
Institute improvements in other
areas. Customer education. Customer education is essential to
improving data quality and usefulness. First, utilities must establish a
single phone number and e-mail
address for customer questions or
concerns and disseminate this information throughout the community.
Customer education regarding upcoming water quality changes,
planned or ongoing infrastructurerelated activities, and guidance on
how to spot suspicious activities and
water theft can be accomplished
through consumer confidence
reports, door hangers, bill inserts,
formal hydrant access policy, targeted customer mailings, mailings of
informational brochures, websites,
and through the media. Other education programs could include security mailings to select locations, consumer education about authorized
users versus unauthorized users, and
issuance of visible permits for thirdparty infrastructure access (e.g.,
hydrants) that can be displayed on
the dashboard or side of a vehicle.
Training. Integration of customer
feedback into utility training is essential. On-the-job training and routine
refresher sessions are helpful. Crosstraining among the call center, operations, water quality, and security
divisions may also assist employees in
understanding customer feedback
warnings and the way customer feedback is handled between and within
departments. If a customer feedback
inquiry enters one department, that
department must know where to
direct the customer and/or the customers concern. Emergency response
and water security exercises are other
vehicles for improving a utilitys abil2007 American Water Works Association
74
ity to handle customer feedback

warnings (Whelton et al, 2006; Whelton, 2005). These sessions provide
opportunities for employees to
acquire, analyze, and investigate roleplayed incidents. AWWA and the
Awwa Research Foundation offer
guidebooks (e.g., Water Quality
Complaint Investigators Field Guide;
Lauer, 2005) on issues related to customer feedback.
Agency relationships. Relationships with health (Gelting & Miller,
2004), police, and fire departments
should be developed and maintained.
Utilities need to identify which outside agency is responsible for receiving and investigating customer water
related illness concerns. Improved
relationships with law enforcement
may also improve system security.
Utilities must also determine which
internal utility department will investigate all specific concerns (e.g., taste
and odor, appearance, facility, pressure and flow, suspicious activity)
and develop an organizational policy on how each of these customer
concerns will be handled and when
outside agencies will be contacted.
SUMMARY
A review of the published literature and onsite interviews with 13
utilities tracked the importance of
customer feedback in monitoring
operations and the necessity of effectively capturing, organizing, storing, and analyzing data received
from customers. This research
yielded the following findings and
observations:
Customer feedback helped
water utilities uncover water quality, operations, and infrastructure
access problems. An integrated customer feedback analysis tool would
allow utilities to improve water quality and infrastructure monitoring.
Although all utilities that participated in this project responded
promptly to customer concerns and
feedback, not all utility personnel perceived broader data analysis as a valuable tool for improving water quality and infrastructure monitoring.
Utilities desire and are working toward integrating customer feedback data with GIS and hydraulic
and water quality models.
Improved communications and
planning among utilities, health agencies, and law enforcement would
benefit both the customer and the
water industry.
Utilities should evaluate and
organize customer feedback data
acquisition and work practices to
optimize their drinking water surveillance systems.
A three-tiered approach to customer feedback data coding and a
water industry check sheet have been
proposed. A set of uniform descriptors is needed, especially to facilitate
communication and data-sharing
among utilities.
Utilities must train personnel
on how to receive, investigate, and
solve customer feedback issues pertaining to water quality, operations,
and security problems.
Research is needed to develop
and test statistical approaches for customer feedback analyses. In addition,
efforts should be directed toward
development of trigger levels at util-
REFERENCES
Allgeier, S.C. & Murray, R., 2005. Contamination Warning Systems: Framing the
Problem. Proc. 2005 AWWA WQTC,
Quebec.
Bartels, J.H.M.; Burlingame, G.A.; & Suffet,
I.H., 1986. Flavor Profile Analysis: Taste
and Odor Control of the Future. Jour.
AWWA, 78:3:50.
Berger, M.; Shiau, R.; & Weintraub, J.M.,
2006. Review of Syndromic Surveillance: Implications for Waterborne Disease Detection. Jour. Epidemiol. &
Community Health, 60:6:543.
Booth, S. & Brazos, B., 2004. Qualitative Procedures for Identifying Particulate Matter in Distribution and Tap Waters.
AwwaRF, Denver.
Burlingame, G.A. & Anselme, C., 1995. Distribution System Tastes and Odors.
Advances in Taste-and-Odor Treatment and Control (I.H. Suffet,
J. Mallevialle, and E. Kawczynski,
editors). AwwaRF/Lyonnaise des Eaux,
Denver.
ities that would automatically initiate

a broader investigation in response to
a high number of customer concerns.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Funding for this project was provided by the AWWA Water Industry
Technical Action Fund and the
Awwa Research Foundation. The
authors thank the 13 utilities and
their staff members who participated in interviews and data-sharing. The insights provided by the
members of the Project Advisory
Committee and Patricia Meinhardt
of Arnot Ogden Medical Center
(Elmira, N.Y.) are also acknowledged. Discussions with members
of the USEPA Water Security Initiative team were helpful and
insightful.
(Virginia Tech) in Blacksburg, from

which he received BS and MS
degrees in civil and environmental
engineering, respectively. Before
undertaking this research, he
worked for the US Army resolving
infrastructure and water quality
issues and helped develop a drinking water complaint guide. Andrea
M. Dietrich (to whom correspondence should be addressed) chairs
the AWWA Taste and Odor Committee and is a professor of civil and
environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, 413 Durham Hall,
Blacksburg, VA, 24061; e-mail:
andread@vt.edu. Daniel L. Gallagher is an associate professor of
civil and environmental engineering
at Virginia Tech. J. Alan Roberson
is the director of security and regulatory affairs at AWWA.
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Andrew J. Whelton is a doctoral

student in civil
and environmental engineering at
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University
Burlingame, G.A.; Choi, J.; Fadel, M.; Gammie, L.; Rahman, J.; & Paran, J., 1994.
Sniff New Mains . . . Before Customers
Complain. Opflow, 20:10:3.
Burlingame, G.A.; Muldowney, J.J.; & Maddrey, R.E., 1992. Cucumber Flavor in
Philadelphias Drinking Water. Jour.
AWWA, 84:8:92.
Burlingame, G.A.; Khiari, D.; & Suffet, I.H.,
1991. Odor Reference Standards: The
Universal Language. Proc. 1991 AWWA
WQTC, Orlando, Fla.
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 1999. Pennsylvania Code, Title 25, Chapter 109,
Safe Drinking Water. Harrisburg, Pa.
Craun, G.F. & Calderon, R.L., 2001. Waterborne Disease Outbreaks Caused by
Distribution System Deficiencies. Jour.
AWWA, 93:9:64.
Dietrich, A.M., 2006. Aesthetic Issues for
Drinking Water. Jour. Water & Health,
4:Suppl. 1:11.
Dietrich, A.M.; Hoehn, R.C.; Burlingame,
G.A.; & Gittelman, T., 2004. Practical
Taste and Odor Methods for Routine
If you have a comment about this

article, please contact us at
journal@awwa.org.
Operations: Decision Tree. AwwaRF,

Denver.
Estelami, H., 2000. Competitive and Procedural Determinants of Delight and Disappointment in Consumer Complaint
Outcomes. Jour. Service Res., 2:3:285.
Fleming, D.M.; Schellevis, F.G.; & Paget,
W.J., 2003. Health Monitoring in Sentinel Practice Networks. European Jour.
Public Health, 13 (Suppl.):3:80.
Gallagher, D. & Cuppett, J., 2007. Comparison
of Threshold Limit Methods for Sensory
Data. Water Sci. & Technol., 55:5:69.
Gelting, R.J. & Miller, M.D., 2004. Linking
Public Health and Water Utilities to
Improve Emergency Response. Jour.
Contemporary Water Res. & Education,
129:22.
Hall, E.L. & Dietrich, A.M., 2000. A Brief History of Drinking Water. Opflow, 26:6:46.
Halstead, D. & Page, T.J., Jr., 1992. Effects of
Satisfaction and Complaining Behavior
on Consumer Repurchase Intentions.
Jour. Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction, & Complaining Behavior, 5:1.

75
Heffernan, R.; Mostashari, F.; Das, D.;

Karpati, A.; Kulldorf, M.; & Weiss, D.,
2004. Syndromic Surveillance in Public
Health Practice, New York City. Emerging Infectious Dis., 10:5: 858.
Heim, T. & Dietrich, A.M., 2007. Sensory
Aspects and Water Quality Impacts of
Chlorinated and Chloraminated Drinking Water in Contact With HDPE and
CPVC Pipe. Water Res., 41:757.
Henning, K.J., 2003. What is Syndromic Surveillance? Morbidity & Mortality
Weekly Rept., 53 (Suppl.):7:11.
Hrudey, S.E. & Hrudey, E.J., 2007. A Nose for
Trouble: The Role of Off-flavors in
Assuring Safe Drinking Water. Water
Sci. & Technol., 55:5:69.
Hrudey, S.E. & Hrudey, E.J., 2004. Safe
Drinking Water Lessons From Recent
Outbreaks in Affluent Nations. IWA
Publ., London.
Jones, I.G. & Roworth, M., 1996. An Outbreak of E. coli Associated With Contamination of a Drinking Water Supply.
Public Health, 110:277.
Khiari, D.; Barrett, S.; Chinn, R.; Bruchet, A.;
Piriou, P.; Matia, L.; Ventura, F.; Suffet,
I.M.; Gittelman, T.; & Leutweiler, P.,
2002. Distribution-generated Tasteand-Odor Phenomena. AwwaRF,
Denver.
Kirmeyer, G.J.; Friedman, M.; Clement, J.;
Sandvig, A.; Noran, P.F.; Martel, K.D.;
Smith, D.; LeChevallier, M.; Volk, C.;
Antoun, E.; Hiltebrand, D.; Dyksen, J.; &
Cushing, R., 2000. Guidance Manual for
Maintaining Distribution System Water
Quality. AwwaRF, Denver.
Lauer, W.C., 2004. Water Quality Complaint
Investigators Field Guide. AWWA,
Denver.
Lawless, H.T. & Heymann, H., 1998. Sensory
Evaluation of Food. Kluwer Academic,
New York.
Mallevialle, J. & Suffet, I.H., 1987. Identification and Treatment of Tastes and Odors
in Drinking Water. AwwaRF, Denver.
McGuire, M.; Hund, R.; Burlingame, G.A.;
Graziano, N.; & Sullivan, L., 2005. Water
Utility Self-assessment for Management of Aesthetic Issues. AwwaR,.
Denver.
Mikol, Y., 2006. Surveillance of 311 Water
Quality Calls as a Warning System for
Sudden Water Quality Changes. Proc.
2006 AWWA Water Security Congress,
Washington.
Mitchell, V.W., 1993. Handling Consumer
Complaint Information: Why and How?
Management Decision, 31:3:21.
Moser, R., 2005. Investigation Into the 1980

Pennsylvania American Water Incident
of Purposeful Chlordane Contamination
Into Its Pittsburgh Suburban Districts
Distribution System, Final Technical
Report, May 12, 2004. Proc. 2005
AWWA Water Security Congress. Oklahoma City.
Payment, P.; Siemiatycki, J.; Richardson, J.;
Renaud, G.; Franco, E.; & Prevost, M.,
1997. A Prospective Epidemiological
Study of Gastrointestinal Health
Effects Due to the Consumption of
Drinking Water. Intl. Jour. Envir. Health
Res., 7:5.
Proctor, M.E.; Blair, K.A.; & Davis, J.P., 1998.
Surveillance Data for Waterborne Illness Detection: An Assessment Following a Massive Waterborne Outbreak of Cryptosporidium Infection.
Epidemiol. & Infection, 120:43.
Rashash, D.M.C.; Hoehn, R.C.; Dietrich,
A.M.; Grizzard, T.J.; & Parker, B.C.,
1996. Identification and Control of
Odorous Algal Metabolites. AwwaRF,
Denver.
Reichheld, F.F. & Sasser, W.E., 1990. Zero
Defections: Quality Comes to Services.
Harvard Business Review, 68:9/10:105.
Rigal, S. & Danjou, J., 1999. Tastes and
Odors in Drinking Water Distribution
Systems Related to the Use of Synthetic Materials. Water Sci. & Technol.,
40:6:203.
Rigal. S., 1992. Use of Organoleptic Investigations to Evaluate the Quality of
Materials in Contact With Drinking
Water. Water Sci. & Technol., 25:2:41.
Roberson, J.A. & Morley, K.E., 2005. Contamination Warning Systems for Water:
An Approach for Providing Actionable
Information to Decision-makers.
AWWA, Denver.
Tennessee DEC (Department of Environment

and Conservation), 1999. Rules of the
Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, Chapter 1299-5-1,
Public Water Systems. Nashville, Tenn.
Thompson, C. & Jenkins, D., 1987. Review of
Water Industry Plastic Pipe Practices.
AwwaRF, Denver.
USDHHS (US Department of Health and
Human Services), 2005. ICD-9-CM Official Guidelines for Coding and Reporting. USDHHS, Washington.
USDOD (US Department of Defense), 2006.
ESSENCE: Electronic Surveillance System for the Early Notification of Community-based Epidemics. USDOD
Global Emerging Infections System
(GEIS), Washington. http://
www.geis.fhp.osd.mil/geis/
surveillanceactivities/essence/
essence.asp (accessed Oct. 3, 2006).
US Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), 2005. Technologies and Techniques for Early Warning Systems to
Monitor and Evaluate Drinking Water
Quality: A State-of-the-Art Review.
EPA/600/R-05/156, Washington.
USEPA, 2003. Response Protocol Toolbox:
Planning For and Responding To Drinking Water Contamination Threats and
Incidents. EPA-817-D-03-007,
Washington.
Whelton, A.J., 2005. Preparing for Water
Terrorism. Military Engr., 97:634:31.
RODS (Real-time Outbreak and Disease Surveillance) Laboratory, 2006. RODS Version 4.2 User Manual. University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pa.
Whelton, A.J., 2003. Drinking Water Consumer Complaints: Indicators From

Distribution System Sentinels, Technical Guide 284. US Army Center for
Health Promotion and Preventive
Medicine, Aberdeen Proving Ground,
Md.
Rogers, H.R.; Norris, M.W.; & James, H.A.,

2004. Effects of Materials of Construction on Tastes and Odours in Drinking
Water. Jour. Reviews in Envir. Sci. &
Biotechnol., 3:23.
Whelton, A.J.; Wisneiwski, P.K.; States, S.;

Birkmire, S.E.; & Brown, M.K., 2006.
Lessons Learned From Disaster and
Terrorism Exercises. Jour. AWWA,
98:7:63.
Short, C.S., 1988. The Bramham Incident,

1980 An Outbreak of Waterborne
Infection. Jour. Inst. Water & Envir.
Management, 2:46:383.
Whelton, A.J.; Dietrich, A.M.; Burlingame,

G.A.; & Cooney, M.F., 2004. Detecting
Contaminated Drinking Water: Harnessing Consumer Complaints. Proc.
2004 AWWA WQTC. San Antonio,
Texas.
Suffet, I.H.; Khiari, D.; & Bruchet, A., 1999.

The Drinking Water Taste and Odor
Wheel for the Millennium: Beyond
Geosmin and 2-Methylisoborneol.
Water Sci. & Technol., 40:6:1.
76
Taylor, W.D.; Losee, R.F.; Torobin, M.; Izaguirre, G.; Sass, D.; Khiari, D.; & Atasi,
K., 2006. Early Warning and Management of Surface Water Taste-and-Odor
Events. AwwaRF, Denver.
Whelton, A.J. & Cooney, M.F., 2004. Drinking

Water Surveillance: We Need Our Customers to Complain. Opflow, 30:11:1.

Customer Feedback For Water Quality Monitoring PDF

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Customer Feedback For Water Quality Monitoring PDF

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

water quality issues

BY ANDREW J. WHELTON, ANDREA M. DIETRICH,

Using customer feedback

CUSTOMER INPUT CAN PROVIDE EARLY INDICATION OF PROBLEMS

NOVEMBER 2007 | JOURNAL AWWA 99:11 | PEER-REVIEWED | WHELTON ET AL

quality. Many of these companies

Danjou, 1999; Burlingame et al,

Because of its historical usefulness and perceived value, customer

2007 American Water Works Association

Drinking water customers (and their

cies (USEPA, 2005). For certain

pounds, customers are often more

FIGURE 1 Causes of 21 drinking water incidents detected

2007 American Water Works Association

NOVEMBER 2007 | JOURNAL AWWA 99:11 | PEER-REVIEWED | WHELTON ET AL

Customer complaint management

Customer input has helped pinpoint

LITERATURE REVIEW HIGHLIGHTED

FIGURE 2 Comparison of water quality, customer

Diarrheaper 100 residents

pliance testing and customer response

creased from a background mean of

covered until after the outbreak had

2007 American Water Works Association

feedback, the Milwaukee complaints

UTILITY VISITS AND INTERVIEWS

(seven in the Southeast, four in the

Characteristics of 13 participating utilities

Median Value (Range)

Finished water productionmgd

Length of distribution mainsmi

Number of fire hydrants

Number of finished water pump stations

Procedures used by utilities to answer or route initial customer

Directly transfer to more appropriate department.

Record basic information from customer, and then transfer to more

Record basic information from customer, attempt to answer, and then

NOVEMBER 2007 | JOURNAL AWWA 99:11 | PEER-REVIEWED | WHELTON ET AL

ance for handling customer feedback

could be an indicator of an actual

FIGURE 3 Customer feedback descriptors used by

personnel as the primary customer

phone numbers were available for

2007 American Water Works Association

of the county commissioner, sheriff,

Categories used at four utilities to describe customer-reported

General water quality

Other taste and odor

Other or not available

*No data indicates data not collected or category not used.

2007 American Water Works Association

NOVEMBER 2007 | JOURNAL AWWA 99:11 | PEER-REVIEWED | WHELTON ET AL

What is the phone number at

ences of the utility personnel who

Methods for storing customer feedback data

Utilities Using Method%

Database on one computer, not networked

Central database on networked computer

Current and desired methods for integrating customer feedback

Work order or asset management system

Geographic information system/facility drawings

Water quality data on maps

Operations activities on maps