|
Internal
Processes and Internal Indicators
rBroad
goals of modernization are to achieve improved irrigation efficiency
(an external indicator), better crop yields (another external indicator
that is not used here), less canal damage from uncontrolled water levels,
more efficient labor, improved social harmony, and an improved environment
as accomplished by less diversions or better quality return flows. In
general, these goals can only be achieved by paying attention to internal
details. The specific details addressed by RAP are improving water control
throughout the project, and improving the water delivery service to
the users
Therefore,
the EXCEL worksheets 5 - 11 have the following purposes:
-
Identify
the key factors related to water control throughout a project.
-
Define
the level of water delivery service provided to the users.
-
Examine
specific hardware and management techniques and processes used in
the control and distribution of water.
Many
of these items are described in the form of "internal indicators",
with assigned values of 0-4 (0 indicating least desirable, and 4 denoting
the most desirable).
A
summary of the internal indicators is found in worksheet 12. Most of
the internal indicators have subcomponents, called "sub-indicators".
At the end of the spreadsheet, each of the sub-indicators is assigned
a "weighting factor".
As
an example of the usage of internal indicators, Primary Indicator I-1
is used to characterize the actual water delivery service to individual
ownership units. Primary Indicator I-1 has 4 sub-indicators:
I-1A.
Measurement of volumes to the field
I-1B. Flexibility to the field
I-1C. Reliability to the field
I-1D. Apparent equity.
Each
of the Sub-Indicators (e.g., No. I-1A) has a maximum potential
value of 4.0 (best), and a minimum possible value of 0.0 (worst).
The value
for each Primary Indicator (e.g., No. I-1) is computed automatically
in the "Internal Indicators" worksheet by:
-
Applying
a relative weighting factor to each sub-indicator value. The weighting
factors are only relative to each other within the indicator group;
one group may have a maximum value of 4, whereas another group may
have a maximum value of 2. The only factor of importance is the
relative weighting factors of the sub-indicators within a group.
-
Summing the weighted sub-indicator values.
-
Adjusting
the final value based on a possible scale of 0-4 (4 indicating the
most positive conditions).
Primary
Indicator I-1 Information.
|
No.
|
Primary
Indicator
|
Sub-Indicator
|
Ranking
Criteria
|
Wt
|
|
I-1
|
Actual
water delivery service to individual ownership units (e.g., field
or farm)
|
|
|
|
|
I-1A
|
|
Measurement
of volumes to the individual units (0-4)
|
4
- Excellent measurement and control devices, properly operated
and recorded.
3 - Reasonable measurement and control devices, average operation.
2 - Useful but poor measurement of volumes and flow rates.
1 - Reasonable measurement of flow rates, but not of volumes.
0 - No measurement of volumes or flows.
|
1
|
|
I-1B
|
|
Flexibility
to the individual units (0-4)
|
4
- Unlimited frequency, rate, and duration, but arranged by users
within a few days.
3 - Fixed frequency, rate, or duration, but arranged.
2 - Dictated rotation, but it approximately matches the crop needs.
1 - Rotation deliveries, but on a somewhat uncertain schedule.
0 - No established rules.
|
2
|
|
I-1C
|
|
Reliability
to the individual units (0-4)
|
4 - Water always arrives with the frequency, rate, and duration
promised. Volume is known.
3 - Very reliable in rate and duration, but occasionally there
are a few days of delay. Volume is known.
2 - Water arrives about when it is needed and in the correct amounts.
Volume is unknown.
1 - Volume is unknown, and deliveries are fairly unreliable, but
less than 50% of the time.
0 - Unreliable frequency, rate, duration, more than 50% of the
time, and volume delivered is unknown.
|
3
|
|
I-1D
|
|
Apparent
equity to individual units (0-4)
|
4
- All fields throughout the project and within tertiary units
receive the same type of water delivery service.
3 - Areas of the project receive the same amounts of water, but
within an area the service is somewhat inequitable.
2 - Areas of the project receive somewhat different amounts (unintentionally),
but within an area it is equitable.
1 - There are medium inequities both between areas and within
areas.
0 - There are differences of more than 50% throughout the project
on a fairly widespread basis.
|
4
|
|
