Asset Management Software Requirements and Market Evaluation for Westernport Water

Overview

Westernport Water (WPW) is a Victorian water corporation providing water and wastewater services to approximately 20,000 people in the Bass Coast region, managing over $300 million worth of infrastructure assets. As part of its ongoing commitment to improving Asset Management System (AMS) maturity, WPW identified the need for its asset register and works management software solutions to be reviewed and potentially replaced.

WPW was operating two disparate, outdated software solutions: Assetic's MyData 1.9 for asset information and FieldTec's Focus v2.4.12.1007 for works management. These systems were unsupported, incompatible with each other and with other systems used by WPW, and were creating significant challenges around data quality, manual data entry, duplication of effort, poor user experience, and high maintenance costs.

SAS Asset Management was engaged to deliver a comprehensive, multi-phase programme to define the requirements for a future asset information and works management system, evaluate the market, and develop an implementation plan.

The Challenge

Replacing core operational software in a water utility is not simply an IT project. The asset management information system sits at the heart of how the organisation plans, schedules, executes, and reports on the work that keeps water flowing to customers. Getting the requirements wrong means either paying for capability the organisation does not need or, worse, implementing a system that fails to support critical business processes.

Key challenges included:

• Two disconnected software platforms with no integration, leading to manual data re-entry and inconsistent information across the organisation.
• A diverse stakeholder landscape spanning Network Operations and Maintenance, Asset Planning, Finance, Customer Service, and Executive teams, each with distinct requirements and levels of system interaction.
• The need to balance legislative and regulatory requirements with WPW's desired future asset management capability and sector better practices.
• Limited internal experience with formal system requirements gathering and vendor evaluation processes.
• The requirement to build an evidence base strong enough to support a business case for significant capital investment in a replacement platform.

Our Approach

SAS-AM delivered four distinct phases across an 18-month engagement, each building on the outputs of the previous phase.

Phase 1: Stakeholder Mapping and User Assessment

We commenced by mapping the entire WPW organisation against the Institute of Asset Management's (IAM) Asset Management Anatomy and the Global Forum on Maintenance and Asset Management (GFMAM) 39 subjects. For each role within WPW, we qualitatively assessed the Level of Interface with each of the 39 GFMAM subjects using a four-tier scoring framework, from 'Not at all' through to 'Daily'.

These scores were aggregated up through the organisational structure, from individual roles to functional teams to management teams, and across the five IAM subject areas. This pragmatic approach to stakeholder prioritisation enabled us to identify the seven functional teams best placed to inform WPW's future software needs, optimising assessment quality against effort and cost while reducing burden across the organisation.

Phase 2: Current State Evaluation

With priority stakeholders identified, SAS-AM conducted targeted engagement activities including structured interviews with key personnel across each functional team. We evaluated the current capability of both MyData and Focus against baseline asset management software expectations, identifying strengths, weaknesses, and the specific capability gaps that any future system would need to address.

This current state evaluation was shared and communicated with the broader WPW stakeholder landscape to build organisational understanding and buy-in for the change programme ahead.

Phase 3: Future State Definition

The future state vision centred on integrating asset information and works management into a single platform that enables data-driven decision making across the organisation. SAS-AM defined the functional and non-functional requirements for the future Asset Information and Works Management System (AIWMS), derived from the baseline capability gaps and aligned with WPW's strategic goals and values.

The future state system was defined to enable the Network Operations and Maintenance team to view asset information and works history, plan and schedule work based on asset criticality and condition, and monitor outcomes. For strategic asset managers, the system would provide the ability to view assets through multiple lenses including condition, capability, performance, and risk, enabling optimal investment decisions across 50-year planning horizons.

A detailed set of system requirements was developed and documented in a comprehensive spreadsheet format suitable for use in vendor evaluation and procurement processes.

Phase 4: Market Evaluation and Implementation Plan

SAS-AM conducted a market sounding exercise, engaging with vendors to assess the available solutions against WPW's defined requirements. This included evaluating platforms across functional capability, integration architecture, deployment model, and alignment with the Victorian water sector's technology landscape.

Finally, we developed a proposed implementation plan to support WPW in delivering the replacement of its systems. This plan addressed governance and oversight mechanisms, including recommendations for a steering committee and project control group, stakeholder engagement and change management strategy, data migration approach, system configuration and testing requirements, training and capability building, and risk management across the implementation lifecycle. The implementation phase was estimated at approximately 18 months, requiring a dedicated project team supported by external consultants.

Results

Evidence-Based Requirements

WPW now has a comprehensive, evidence-based set of system requirements that reflect the actual needs of its workforce, from field operators through to executive leadership. The GFMAM-aligned stakeholder mapping ensures that requirements are traceable back to specific organisational roles and business processes, providing confidence that no critical needs have been overlooked.

Clear Future State Vision

The organisation has a documented and agreed future state vision for its asset information and works management capability. This vision is aligned with WPW's strategic objectives, regulatory obligations, and sector better practices, providing a clear target for procurement and implementation.

Procurement-Ready Documentation

The deliverables from this engagement, including the stakeholder mapping, current state evaluation, future state definition with detailed system requirements, and market evaluation, form a complete procurement package. WPW can use these documents directly in tender processes, vendor evaluations, and business case development.

Reduced Implementation Risk

By investing in thorough requirements definition before entering the market, WPW has significantly reduced the risk of selecting a platform that does not meet its needs. The phased approach means that each decision was informed by the evidence gathered in previous phases, building confidence progressively through the programme.

Organisational Alignment

The extensive stakeholder engagement conducted throughout all four phases has built organisational understanding of and support for the system replacement programme. This alignment is critical for the change management effort that will accompany the eventual implementation.

Why This Engagement Matters

Asset information systems are the foundation of effective asset management. Without reliable, accessible data and integrated works management capability, water utilities cannot make the informed decisions needed to deliver safe, reliable, and efficient services to their communities.

For regional water authorities like Westernport Water, the stakes are particularly high. These organisations often operate with lean teams and tight budgets, meaning the selected platform needs to deliver genuine operational value from day one. Getting the requirements right is not optional - it is the difference between a transformational investment and an expensive disappointment.

At SAS-AM, we bring deep asset management domain knowledge to technology projects. We understand not just what software needs to do, but why it needs to do it and how it will be used by real people in real operational contexts. This perspective ensures that system requirements are grounded in asset management reality rather than technology aspiration.