Position Paper - The Future of IBNET - Final Version v4

The Future of IBNET
Position paper
Enrique Cabrera
©ITA 2020
Summary
IBNET has been for almost 25 years a unique source of information for the
water sector at a global scale. A product with no equivalent alternatives
in the market. Its impact goes well beyond the thousands of water
professionals that have used its data, as its principles and targets have
inspired change in the water sector and produced similar initiatives
multiplying its effect.
Looking into the future, IBNET needs to evolve and adapt its success
formula to maintain its relevance and impact. In a world where water data
are becoming more and more abundant, IBNET 2.0 should not just provide
data, but information leading to substantive public policy changes, better
understanding of emerging issues in the sector, and regional aspirational
goals and standards that lead to improvement.
This new version of IBNET will not reach perfection or be flawless. By

nature, IBNET will always be subject to criticism and far from a theoretical
ideal. However, even in its imperfection, it is undeniable that the water
sector is in great need of IBNET, the role it plays in it today and the role it
may play in the future.
©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABBREVIATIONS ................................................................................................................... 5
Executive summary .............................................................................................................. 6
IBNET analysis and value proposition ................................................................................ 6
0.1.1. 5 key notions about IBNET .......................................................................................................6
0.1.2. IBNET Gaps ...............................................................................................................................7
0.1.3. Critical success factors .............................................................................................................8
Options for the future ...................................................................................................... 10

0.2.1. IBNET termination – US$ 0 ....................................................................................................10
0.2.2. Continuation with the status quo – US$480-640,000 + US$480,000 annually ......................10
0.2.3. Development of IBNET 2.0 – US$480,000/1,039,000 + US$480,000/970,000 annually ........11
Conclusions ......................................................................... ¡Error! Marcador no definido.
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 12
IBNET today ...................................................................................................................... 12
1.1.1. Benchmarking database ........................................................................................................13
1.1.2. Tariff database .......................................................................................................................13
1.1.3. IBNET Toolkit..........................................................................................................................15
1.1.4. Other resources and content .................................................................................................16
1.1.5. IBNET’s current use ................................................................................................................16
Market position ................................................................................................................ 18

1.2.1. Inter-American Development Bank - AquaRating ..................................................................18
1.2.2. OECD statistics .......................................................................................................................21
1.2.3. ADERASA - Benchmarking Task Group ...................................................................................21
1.2.4. Asian Development Bank - SEAWUN .....................................................................................22
1.2.5. SIASAR ....................................................................................................................................23
1.2.6. Pacific water and wastewater association – Benchmarking (partner site) ............................24
1.2.7. DANUBIS (Danube Water Program) – (partner site) ..............................................................25
1.2.8. Regulators survey - use of performance indicators ...............................................................27
1.2.9. DiscoverWater (England and Wales) .....................................................................................29
1.2.10. ERSAR (Portugal) ....................................................................................................................31
1.2.11. SISS (Chile) .............................................................................................................................32
1.2.12. SUNASS (Peru) .......................................................................................................................34
1.2.13. EBC (European Benchmarking Co-operation) ........................................................................34

1.2.14. Market position comparison..................................................................................................35
IBNET impact 2004-2020 .................................................................................................. 37

1.3.1. Castalia survey .......................................................................................................................37
1.3.2. Website traffic .......................................................................................................................39
1.3.3. Internet searches ...................................................................................................................44
1.3.4. Academic citations .................................................................................................................48
2. Value proposition of IBNET ......................................................................................... 49

Value of IBNET for stakeholders....................................................................................... 49
2.1.1. The Castalia report.................................................................................................................49
2.1.2. The Diaz report ......................................................................................................................54
2.1.3. The value of IBNET in 2020 ....................................................................................................55
SWOT Analysis.................................................................................................................. 58
The role of The World Bank in IBNET ............................................................................... 60
3. Way forward: IBNET 2.0 .............................................................................................. 62

Proposed updates ............................................................................................................ 62
3.1.1. Including data quality information ........................................................................................63
3.1.2. Presenting raw data and definitions ......................................................................................66
3.1.3. Completing data gaps and resuming data collection .............................................................67
Conceptual changes to the system .................................................................................. 68

3.2.1. IBNET concept change and repositioning ..............................................................................68
3.2.2. IBNET scope and metrics .......................................................................................................71
New knowledge products in IBNET 2.0 ............................................................................ 72

3.3.1. Global Water Knowledge Database .......................................................................................72
3.3.2. Annual reports and profiles ...................................................................................................73
3.3.3. IBNET Gold Standard..............................................................................................................76
New features in the IBNET 2.0 portal............................................................................... 81

Governance framework and operation............................................................................ 84
Implementation roadmap ................................................................................................ 85
3.6.1. Appointment of a core team for IBNET 2.0............................................................................85
3.6.2. Development of an IBNET strategic plan ...............................................................................86
3.6.3. Determine IBNET 2.0 scope ...................................................................................................86
3.6.4. Develop Golden Standard principles .....................................................................................86
3.6.5. Establish data quality framework ..........................................................................................86
3.6.6. Design, develop and migrate to new database .....................................................................87

3.6.7. Complete benchmarking database data 2016-2020 ..............................................................87
3.6.8. Design new IBNET brand and create brand manual ..............................................................87
3.6.9. Design and develop the online platform front-end features and data submission system...87
3.6.10. Design annual IBNET publication ...........................................................................................88
3.6.11. Develop a review calendar.....................................................................................................88
3.6.12. Establish a governance structure ...........................................................................................88
Financial requirements .................................................................................................... 88

3.7.1. IBNET Strategic plan...............................................................................................................89
3.7.2. Completing data gaps and resuming data collection .............................................................89
3.7.3. IBNET Gold Standard..............................................................................................................89
3.7.4. Upgrade of the current IT system ..........................................................................................90
3.7.5. IBNET concept change and repositioning ..............................................................................91
3.7.6. Annual report .........................................................................................................................91
3.7.7. External operation by a third party........................................................................................92
4. Conclusions ................................................................................................................. 93
4.1.1. IBNET is a unique tool and occupies a significant space in the urban water space ...............93
4.1.2. IBNET has no real competitors. IBNET has no replacement. .................................................93
4.1.3. Urban water data is necessary...............................................................................................93
4.1.4. IBNET needs to manage expectations better ........................................................................93
4.1.5. IBNET needs a Strategic Plan .................................................................................................94
4.1.6. It is urgent to resume data collection ....................................................................................94
4.1.7. IBNET is a key tool for policy making .....................................................................................94
4.1.8. IBNET needs repositioning .....................................................................................................95
4.1.9. IBNET needs to evolve ...........................................................................................................95
5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 96
Annexes .............................................................................................................................. 99
a. Historical context ................................................................................................................. 99
b. Benchmarking database options ........................................................................................ 106
c. Analytics for IBNET websites .............................................................................................. 110

ABBREVIATIONS
ADB Asian Development Bank
DANUBIS Danube Utility Benchmarking and Information Sharing
DWP Danube Water Program
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
IBNET International Benchmarking Network
IAWD International Association of Water Supply Companies in the Danube

Catchment Area
IDB Inter-American Development Bank
IFC International Finance Corporation
IWA International Water Association
NGO Non-governmental organization
OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
OFWAT Office of Water Services (former denomination)
SEAWUN Southeast Asian Water Utilities Network Initiative
SIASAR Sistema de Información de Agua y Saneamiento Rural (Rural Water and

Sanitation Information System)
PWWA Pacific Water and Wastewater Association
WSP Water and Sanitation Program
WB World Bank
WRc Water Research Centre

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
IBNET analysis and value proposition
0.1.1. 5 key notions about IBNET

1. IBNET is a unique tool and has been occupying a significant space in the water
sector for almost 25 years. During that time, it has collected an unprecedented
amount of data on urban water services, with indicators from more than 5000
utilities in 151 countries. The metrics cover a wide range of issues for the utilities,
focusing on costs, efficiency and the quality of the service.
2. IBNET has no real competitors and has no possible replacement. If IBNET ceased
to exist, there would be no alternative to replace it and the sector would lose its
main source of global information on urban water services. As a result, IBNET
continues to be a relevant and valuable tool
3. IBNET is more than a database and has been contributing to the improvement of
water services in ways that are not directly related to benchmarking (and the
comparison of utilities). The definitions have become a standard, it has led to spin-
off regional efforts like DANUBIS or PWWA, influenced the performance
assessment systems of a significant number of utilities and supported the work of
regulatory agencies.
4. Data are at the core of IBNET, and a constant stream of significant, reliable data
is needed every year for IBNET to be useful. The collection of IBNET data usually
requires (funded) agreements with local partners (water associations, regulators,
projects, consultants, etc.). Eventually, individual utilities may contribute data to
IBNET, but these cases are the exception. IBNET is as valuable as the data it
contains.
5. Benchmarking has dominated the narrative for IBNET during its history. However,
the program has evolved and outgrown the original concept. IBNET today is more
than just benchmarking, and it includes sector information like tariffs, analysis tools
and aggregated country and regional reports. IBNET may be the International
Benchmarking Network, but it is achieving its mission through additional channels
others than benchmarking.

0.1.2. IBNET Gaps
In 2012, Castalia was engaged by the World Bank to create a Development and Marketing
Strategy for IBNET (Castalia, 2012a). The document identified the gaps in IBNET (see Figure
1) and proposed remedial actions to bridge them.
Figure 1. Gaps identified through the Castalia survey and interviews (Castalia, 2012a)
Last year, another report was elaborated to consider the different options for the
continuation of IBNET (Diaz, 2019). The Diaz report identified the following gaps:
§ IBNET is a conceptually and technologically outdated

§ IBNET has only worked out the database value proposition
§ It is a one-size-fits-all tool
§ A public good with limited reach
§ A tool with communication, design, institutional and governance caveats
§ A tool of huge potential but no commercial value
Taking those two sources as a reference, these are the main challenges and gaps for IBNET
today as identified by this paper:
Lack of IBNET knowledge/reach. IBNET is well known among regular users of urban water
data and benchmarking and performance assessment experts. The analysis of website
traffic show that IBNET is used and relevant. However, the strong characterization of IBNET
as a benchmarking tool may have prevented a wider audience to make an effective use of
the tool.
Data reliability issues. Data quality issues have always existed and will likely continue to
exist in IBNET. Water sector data are often inaccurate and unreliable. However, there is
room for improvement and, for instance, IBNET could be more transparent to users with
regards to the quality of the data stored in the system.

IBNET users want more complete data. IBNET contains vast amounts of information, but
datasets are often not as complete as they could be. This gap has become extremely
significant with the absence of datasets added to IBNET after 2016, leaving a very
significant gap in historic data and hence accentuating an already existing challenge.
Additionally, IBNET could benefit from better aggregated data at the regional and national
levels.
IBNET is a one-size fits all tool. A lot is expected from IBNET, as the needs of the sector are
significant information-wise. However, the original design with only benchmarking
indicators has proven to be insufficient. For some purposes, the problem is found at the
level of detail that can be too focused on utility performance, or not detailed enough
(depending on the use). Additionally, after 25 years, sector needs have evolved, and the
information needed to promote public policies and improve water and sanitation services
has grown (with the need to address now emerging issues and monitoring SDG evolution).
Website design. Despite presenting a very comprehensive website, and significant efforts
to improve its usability and functionality, the tools are not as intuitive as they could be and
there is still plenty of room for improvement in IBNET. A redesign of the front office with
the user experience in mind could contribute in a very positive way to increase the impact
of IBNET.
0.1.3. Critical success factors

Considering the gaps identified above, these are the critical success factors that need to be
addressed to improve the current situation.
1) Expectations management is at the core of most of IBNET structural problems

Users have often expressed concerns about the data quality of IBNET. This is a
particularly sensitive issue in benchmarking. However, sector data with even more
questionable quality than IBNET’s is often widely used. Improving data quality
significantly in IBNET may not be possible on the short term but managing users’
expectations and acknowledge the current far-from-perfect quality of data could
lead to an improved perception of the program.
2) The value of IBNET decreases exponentially when data are not updated
Data collection was abruptly interrupted in IBNET after 2016. Under these
circumstances IBNET loses value and the public perception may be adversely
affected. The survival of IBNET requires to resume immediately the data collection
efforts.

3) IBNET needs to grow as a concept beyond benchmarking
IBNET has been contributing to the improvement of water services in ways that are
not directly related to benchmarking (and the comparison of utilities). The tariff
database is a very significant addition not focused on benchmarking, IBNET
definitions have become a standard, the program has led to spin-off regional efforts
like DANUBIS or PWWA, influenced the performance assessment systems of a
significant number of utilities and supported the work of regulatory agencies. IBNET
should be repositioned as a program to include these notions and grow beyond the
benchmarking database value proposition.
4) IBNET is a key tool for policy making

Water data is fundamental in driving change in the water sector. The World Bank
website summarizes it very clearly: “the world needs a fundamental shift in how it
understands, values and manages water. Understanding water means making
evidence-based decisions about water using strengthened water data” (The World
Bank, 2020). IBNET by design should focus on supporting those evidence-based
decisions.
5) New indicators and content must be added to IBNET

IBNET’s indicators are one of its greatest assets. However, a new evolution of IBNET
is an excellent opportunity to include new indicators that are aligned with the
Bank’s strategy. Issues like safely managed water and sanitation, resilience and
sustainable infrastructure could be included in this new evolution of the indicators
in IBNET.
6) A strategic plan is needed

If IBNET is to continue in the future, it must do so with a clear strategy guiding the
program, and fully aligned with the Bank’s objectives. Any new developments
should be conceived with a strategic mindset guiding the decision-making process.

Options for the future
Three different scenarios have been considered for the future of IBNET.
0.2.1. IBNET termination – US$ 0

One of the possibilities for the future of IBNET is terminating the program. This would
imply closing the website down and removing the online information. Although the idea
of keeping the data online could be entertained (the associated costs of keeping the
information online are not relevant) this does not seem like a good option. Online data
in an unsupervised website could expose the Bank to a reputational risk (displaying
outdated information, perception of abandonment, potential security breaches in a WB
website, etc.).
IBNET TERMINATION
Pros Cons
§ Annual resources assigned to IBNET are liberated and can be § 25 years of data are lost
used in other projects § Current and future users of IBNET no longer use it to improve
§ Avoid the risk of IBNET slowly fading away water services
§ Spin-off projects (DANUBIS, PWWA) lose central support
The World Bank ceases to be the global reference for urban
water data
§ The IBNET standard used in several parts of the world
becomes obsolete
§ Data collection projects with links to IBNET may lose
momentum or disappear
§ Reputational risk from closing the program and losing a public
good
0.2.2. Continuation with current IBNET (status quo) – US$480-640,000 +

US$480,000 annually
In order for IBNET to continue its operation it would be fundamental to complete the
missing information from the last 3 years (one of the identified gaps referred to data being
complete). A minimum intervention would therefore consist in funding data collection for
the 2017-2020 period and resume pre-2016 operations with the current functionality. After
the initial investment, annual costs and resources required would be the same as in 2016
(updated).

CONTINUATION WITH THE STATUS QUO
Pros Cons
§ No investment in additional functionality or products § Evolution of IBNET not possible with this option
§ Current users can still use IBNET § Same shortcomings that have triggered this paper will still
§ Spin-off projects maintain central support exist
§ World Bank continues to be the global reference for urban § Missed opportunity to re-align IBNET with WB strategy
water data § IBNET may become obsolete in the medium term from lack of
§ Data collection projects linked to IBNET can continue their adaptation
collaboration § Other products / initiatives may occupy the data repository /
§ Reduced uncertainty about outcome intelligence product space
§ Avoid reputational risk from closing the program § IBNET standard not updated (same system and definitions)
§ Constant stream of data needed
0.2.3. IBNET 2.0 – US$480,000/1,039,000 + US$480,000/970,000 annually

The development of a new version of IBNET needs to be driven by first drafting a new
strategic plan for the program. The options chosen for the new IBNET will depend on this
strategy, and as a result so will be the associated costs. The individual costs for each
alternative are detailed in section 3.7 in the report.
IBNET 2.0 (RECOMMENDED)

Pros Cons
§ IBNET is fully aligned with WB strategy § IBNET will require continued financial support from the WB
§ New functionality caters additional needs (emerging issues, § Constant stream of data needed
SDGs, etc.) § System more complex to manage
§ Improved IBNET profile as a public policy tool § Real impact of the program will still be difficult to quantify
§ Data quality issue solved
§ IBNET easier to use
§ Current users can still use IBNET
§ Spin-off projects maintain central support
§ World Bank continues to be the global reference for urban
water data
§ Data collection projects linked to IBNET can continue their
collaboration
§ Reduced uncertainty about outcome
§ Avoid reputational risk from closing the program

1. INTRODUCTION
The International Benchmarking Network of Water and Wastewater Utilities (IBNET) is a

comprehensive set of tools and data, administered under the Water and Sanitation
Program (WSP) of the World Bank. Initially designed as a short-term initiative, it has
become the largest publicly available repository of utility performance data (van den Berg
& Danilenko, 2010).
IBNET has been in operation for almost 25 years. Since the mid 90s, it has consistently
occupied the space of being the global reference for urban water data, and it has done so
unopposed. Although there have been numerous benchmarking initiatives around the
world, none of them were as global, public or perdured in time for as long as IBNET has.
The IBNET database contains information from more than 5200 utilities in 151 countries
(IBNET website, 2020).
In order to understand whether IBNET continues to be as relevant today, its history, current
position in the market, its competition and its overall impact need to be reviewed. This is
the purpose of this first section.
IBNET today
IBNET in 2020 is more than a single repository of indicators aimed at the comparison of
utility performance. The initial performance database has grown and expanded, including
a tariff database, a library of documents and best practices, spin-off databases for local or
regional benchmarking and several other products.
For a historical context of IBNET since its inception, and the pivotal role played by the
concept of benchmarking, please refer to Annex a in this report.
In 2012, WSP engaged Castalia Strategic Advisors to produce a Development Marketing

Strategy for a new phase of IBNET, on in which IBNET would be the global “go to”
organization for international benchmarking (Castalia, 2012a). Some of the
recommendations issued in that report are clearly identifiable in today’s IBNET, like the
“Benchmarking methodologies” and “Resources” sections in its website.
Two are the immediate consequences of this growth:
1) IBNET can no longer be considered a simple benchmarking program anymore.

2) It is very difficult for the average user to understand the breadth of information
available under the IBNET umbrella without an in-depth exploration of the website.
Currently, these are the main components of IBNET:

1.1.1. Benchmarking database
At the core of IBNET lies its benchmarking database. The database contains records dating
back to 1994. As of April 2020, a total of 5230 different utilities from 151 countries are
contained in the database1, an impressive figure by all standards.
Each record in the database is structured around the 92 IBNET indicators, which have
certainly become a standard on their own. The indicators values are calculated from a total
of 127 input data elements or variables.
The benchmarking database is essentially a collection of standardized indicators, as it is

precisely the use of the exact same definitions what allows to compare the performance of
different utilities. This is a key notion, for it is certainly one of the strengths of the system,
but also contributes to one of the limitations of IBNET. The comparability of the data within
IBNET is only as good as the homogeneity of the definitions (if different utilities calculate
the indicators in different ways, they are less comparable).
The IBNET toolkit (reviewed later) is the tool that aims to provide homogeneity for the
IBNET indicators, by detailing the definitions, providing a standardized input tool and
carrying out consistency checks.
The vast information of the benchmarking database can be consulted through the different
options in the website. These options are covered in detail in Annex b.
1.1.2. Tariff database

The tariff database is one of the latest additions to IBNET and probably the clearest example
that IBNET is no longer just a benchmarking product. On April 2020, the database included
tariff data from 2558 utilities in 210 countries, for a total of 14586 tariffs.
Although it is possible to compare tariffs, this can hardly be considered performance

benchmarking anymore (despite the fact that this information may be extremely useful).
The different sections of the tariff database allow to access the information in different
ways:
Filter by region and country
Utility tariffs can be accessed by country once a region has been selected.
1
The amount of data stored for each utility may span from a single year of records, to a significant number of
years.

Figure 2. Utility tariff record in the tariff database (IBNET website, 2020)
Search Tariffs
Provides a table display of utilities and tariffs, with the possibility of filtering by country,
region, service, periodicity, and tariff type. The results can be exported to Excel, CSV an PDF
formats.
Access Tariffs via Map
A world map with all utilities is displayed and tariffs can be access by clicking on the right
marker.
Tariffs benchmarking
Tariff comparison based on a 15m3 consumption, averaged by country, with the possibility
to filter by location.

Figure 3. Tariff benchmarking for Latin America (IBNET website, 2020)
1.1.3. IBNET Toolkit

The IBNET toolkit was first developed in 1999 (The World Bank, 1999) as an Excel
spreadsheet to support a decentralized collection of performance data in an orderly and
consistent manner. Today, the toolkit is still a spreadsheet although quite complex in
functionality, including a 20 page manual (Macroconsulting, 2013), a guidance document
and the full definitions of indicators and variables (input data).
The IBNET toolkit can be downloaded in 12 languages. Additionally, the tariff toolkit is also
provided in a different excel spreadsheet.
Figure 4. The IBNET toolkit (IBNET website, 2020)

1.1.4. Other resources and content
The IBNET website contains other resources and content, some of which are a direct
consequence of the conclusions of the Castalia report (Castalia, 2012a). Specifically:
Dictionary
A glossary of benchmarking related terms that allows for a better understanding of the role
of IBNET.
Regional platforms based on IBNET
Although they will be reviewed in the market position section, IBNET contains links to other
websites based on IBNET (DANUBIS.org and the Pacific Water and Wastewater Association
Benchmarking Website)
Benchmarking methodologies
IBNET also contains a detailed training section on how to do benchmarking.
1.1.5. IBNET’s current use

The IBNET benchmarking database website welcomes the visitor with a graph displaying
how many utilities have been added to the website per year. Although this graph was
probably added in earlier times when a clear ascending slope would be visible, the truth is
that the graph displayed today would lead any visitor to think that the project has either
been abandoned or has lost significant support.
Figure 5 shows how the number of utilities (and data) stored in IBNET grew almost every
year from 1994 until 2015. In that 22-year series, only in 3 years (most notably 2005, but
also 2008 and 2013) the number of utilities added to the database was smaller than the
year before. The series presents a very clear upward trend in that period.
However, the last 4 years of the series (2016-2019) present a dramatic drop in data
inclusion in the website, going back to the levels of the late 90s, where the current IBNET
website did not even exist yet.

Figure 5. Number of utilities (and population) added to the IBNET database per year 1994-2019
(IBNET website, 2020)
A very interesting correlation exercise can be done when comparing the statistics for the
website for the last 12 years (see Figure 6)
Figure 6. IBNET website total number of individual users per month 2007-2020 (Google, 2020a)
The figure clearly shows that the interest in IBNET had a continuous growth in from June
2007 to 2016 and started to decline in 2016, precisely the year where data collection was
dramatically reduced. From the peak traffic values of 2015, IBNET has witnessed how its
website visits were reduced by 60 to 80%, depending on the year.
It would be hard to argue with the cause-effect relationship that these two graphs seem to
imply. The absence of up-to-date utility data drastically reduces the interest in IBNET and
the information it contains. And it could be argued if the addition of the tariffs database
precisely around the same time (the first incorporated data are from 2015) is not the only
thing holding usage levels above the thousand users per month figure.
In any case, even ignoring the apparently strong correlation between data and traffic, it can
be stated that IBNET has definitely seen better times, when data were consistently added
year after year, and traffic visiting the site was growing steadily.

This situation should be reversible, and in the absence of other competitors occupying
IBNET space, should the data from the missing years be completed2, IBNET could go back
to its 2016 levels of activity.
Market position
Discussing the future of IBNET is not possible without a clear overview of similar tools
available in the market and their commonalities and differences. This chapter will focus on
the IBNET benchmarking database (the tariff database is quite unique, and no similar
products have been found besides the local tariffs published by utilities or in very few cases
the national tariffs published by a regulator).
1.2.1. Inter-American Development Bank - AquaRating

The product that is closer to be a real competitor to IBNET in the water sector is
AquaRating, despite being quite different in nature. However, its global character, the fact
that it is owned by IDB, and its urban nature (with coincident indicators with IBNET) means
that it is destined to occupy at least some of the same space as IBNET.
AquaRating was conceived in 2008 by IDB and developed together with IWA. Its main goals
are to improve the efficiency and transparency of water and sanitation services and
promoting the quality of the service in a sustainable and cost-effective way (AquaRating,
2019).
AquaRating allows to know the current performance of the services and to strategically
identify improvement opportunities through a process of transformation, strategic
planning, change management, innovation, continuous improvement and knowledge
management (Krause et al., 2018). AquaRating does this by providing ratings from 0 to 100
for all elements, areas and the global performance of the utility.
The rating system of AquaRating contains 112 evaluation elements (performance indicators
and best practices) organised in 8 areas. Figure 7 shows these areas. With this structure,
AquaRating provides a quick overview of the strengths and weaknesses of water utilities
and allows for an immediate identification of the areas with potential for improvement.
The quality of data is in the foundation of the system and affects the overall score of
utilities.
2
Quite likely, utilities have continued to generate data in the years that the IBNET site is missing. Data have
simply not been reported to (or collected by) IBNET. Therefore, it would be potentially very feasible to fill
those gaps if the data collection efforts started again.

Figure 7. AquaRating rating areas (Krause et al., 2018)
AquaRating and IBNET share some similarities as their aim is to improve water services
worldwide based on performance evaluation. Nevertheless, there are some key
differentiating factors that should be taken into account:
Program nature
IBNET is an online available resource and any utility can submit data to the database.
Usually the relationship between the two parties ends with that annual information
exchange3. AquaRating has more of a program nature to it. Utilities need to enrol (at a
cost), there are several stages to be covered, feedback is provided to the utility, a certificate
is issued, and a renewal process is due after a period of time.
Metrics
IBNET is solely based on pure data and performance indicators. AquaRating also assesses
processes (good practices) and the quality of data.
Performance targets
AquaRating creates a performance target for each indicator and provides a score for each
metric. These targets are arbitrary and determine the values of the different ratings. In
some way AquaRating is providing a “judgement” on the utility’s performance. This is to
incentivize improvement through the need to improve the rating. IBNET on the other hand
achieves this incentive by comparison (benchmarking) with the performance of other
3
This data collection may be carried out through consultants contracted by The World Bank

utilities. IBNET does not “judge” the performance of a utility, it simply allows it to be
compared with the rest of the field.
Confidentiality
IBNET is an open system while AquaRating is not. All performance data in IBNET is open
access, and even raw data can be downloaded in different formats, allowing a full use of
the system. AquaRating is based on the confidentiality of the data provided by utilities, and
individual results can only be accessed by each participating utility.
Onsite data validation
AquaRating relies for a full rating on the onsite validation and auditing of the submitted
data. This is due to the fact that AquaRating will issue a certificate with the rating value.
Although IBNET also presents internal data validation mechanisms, they are not as
thorough as the AquaRating procedures.
Impact of data quality in the assessment
IBNET does not provide information on the quality of the data used to calculate the
indicators. Although data are validated, they are basically classified in two categories (valid
or not valid). AquaRating typically presents 5 levels of data quality for each input variable,
and additionally, the rating obtained by a utility is greatly influenced by the quality of the
submitted data (poor data will produce a much lower rating than good data, even if the
declared performance is the same).
Improvement recommendations
AquaRating provides individual improvement recommendations to participating utilities. If

utilities decide to use IBNET, they need to determine the improvement path themselves.
Costs
Participation in IBNET as a utility is free (besides the obvious costs implied in collecting and
submitting the data). However, obtaining an AquaRating evaluation implies a cost that has
to be paid by the utility. This cost aims to cover the auditing of the data and the handling
of the program.
The cost to the hosting organization is obviously not the same. IBNET generates no income
and all the costs need to be covered by the Bank. AquaRating net costs will depend on the
fixed/variable costs ratio and the extent to which cover their actual participation costs.
Stakeholders use
AquaRating was conceived, as a product, with utilities in mind as users. It cannot be used
by third parties, unless they do so through utilities (for instance a regulator may encourage

or force utilities to get an AquaRating). IBNET data can be accessed by a wide variety of
stakeholders.
In summary, AquaRating and IBNET are very different products although they share some
characteristics. In any case, they serve similar purposes and may share some of the space,
especially since AquaRating has started to include the word “benchmarking” in some of its
marketing materials.
However, unless there are significant changes, they will remain fundamentally different
products. IBNET value lies on the size of its database, with hundreds of utilities contributing
data every year. It would be surprising if more than 100 utilities used AquaRating every
year. IBNET is accessible for everyone. AquaRating is a private assessment for each utility.
There is one final potential risk in the space the tools occupy, and this would come from
IDB starting to publish aggregated market figures from their audited ratings. This could be
quite valuable as all data would have been validated. However, in order for this information
to become really valuable, the amount of worldwide ratings and the diversity of the rated
utilities (size, nature, etc.) should be much higher.
1.2.2. OECD statistics

The OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) does not have a
comparable tool to IBNET, but it holds a public database with data aggregated by country
from several sectors, including the water sector (OECD.Stats, 2018).
The performance indicators in the database are not focused on the quality of the service,
but rather on the environmental impact of water (water abstraction, wastewater
treatment, etc.). The data presented in tables or charts can be used for comparison or
benchmarking (OECD, 2020). However, the interface lacks the functionality that the IBNET
website has. Data records are available since 1999/2000.
Strictly speaking, the OECD statistics cannot be considered an IBNET competitor. The
indicators address different issues, they are aggregated at a national level and it does not
provide database querying functionality.
1.2.3. ADERASA - Benchmarking Task Group

ADERASA is the Association of Water and Sanitation Regulators of the Americas and one of
its task groups is in charge of comparative performance assessment (benchmarking)
between the members.

The annual performance comparison, established in 2002, is carried out using performance
indicators, analysed with econometric and frontier efficiency methods.
The benchmarking exercise is carried out using 63 performance indicators and their
corresponding 149 variables (ADERASA, 2018).
The last report contained performance data from 115 utilities from 10 countries (ADERASA,
2018). Results are presented in tables that indicate trends in the previous years, as seen in
Figure 8.
Figure 8. Operating cost coverage ratio for “very large” utilities (ADERASA, 2018)
ADERASA has its own data collection system, although only the report is public.
More than an IBNET competitor, the ADERASA initiative could be considered a partner
project, as it has provided data to IBNET in the past and it may continue to do so in the
future, given the right circumstances. The ADERASA initiative is very unlikely to grow
beyond the association’s regional scope.
1.2.4. Asian Development Bank - SEAWUN

SEAWUN is the Southeast Asian Water Utilities Network Initiative, promoted by the Asian
Development Bank (ADB). Its goal is to help members improve performance in delivering
water supply and sanitation services (SEAWUN, 2007). To reach this objective, it uses
comparative performance assessment.
The Project started in 2002 and in 2005 it hosted data from 25 water utilities and 5 utilities
associations. Its members are from Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam
(SEAWUN, 2007).
All data is transparent and published through reports. Results from utilities are presented
considering their context (size, etc.). The last part of the report characterises all participant
utilities (Asian Development Bank, 2007).

Figure 9. Staff/1000 connections restults, SEAWUN (Asian Development Bank, 2007)
SEAWUN was listed in both the Castalia report (Castalia, 2012a) and the Diaz report (Diaz,
2019). However, data have not been updated since 2007 and it can hardly be considered
anything else but a past project.
1.2.5. SIASAR
SIASAR stands for Rural Water and Sanitation Information System. It is an initiative
promoted by the governments of Honduras, Nicaragua and Panama, but they welcome any
member with rural water and sanitation services.
The database contains utilities mainly from Latin American countries4, with the notable
exception of Kirghizstan. The performance metrics from these rural water and sanitation
services can be accessed in the online platform or through an app.
However, there are significant data gaps, as shown in Figure 10.
4
Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, Mexico, Peru, Bolivia, Paraguay, Brazil
and Bolivia

Figure 10. Information system from SIASAR (SIASAR, 2020)
This project is supported by the World Bank, Agencia Española de Cooperación

Internacional para el Desarrollo, IDB, Swiss Agency of Development and Cooperation,
Gobierno de España, Corporación Andina de Fomento, European Comission, KFW Group
and FOCARD-APS (Foro Centroamericano y República Dominicana de Agua Potable y
Saneamiento).
Given the scope and geographic reach of the initiative, it can probably be considered more
a complement to IBNET than a direct competitor, although its nature is very similar.
1.2.6. Pacific water and wastewater association – Benchmarking (partner site)

The Pacific Water and Wastewater Association (PWWA) is a non-profit Organization born
in 1994 with a mission of "Shaping a high performing and sustainable Pacific water and
wastewater utilities sector" by "Developing expertise and capacities, collaborating and
advocating for the sustainable management of water and wastewater services in the Pacific
region" (PWWA, 2020a)
The PWWA has a benchmarking program, to do comparative performance assessment and

encourage the improvement of the sector.
The benchmarking program started in 2009 and in 2011 they adopted the IBNET tools and
instruments (PWWA, 2020b). Figure 11 shows the similarities with the IBNET Benchmarking
database. As seen in the figure, the only part of IBNET PWWA benchmarking tool does not
have is the “Indicator heat map”.

Figure 11. Search PWWA Database main menu (PWWA,
2020b)
PWWA benchmarking database is free and allows a very similar analysis to IBNET. The
database contains data up to 2018 for most of its utilities. 2019 data are being introduced
in the database.
1.2.7. DANUBIS (Danube Water Program) – (partner site)

The Danube Water Program (DWP) is a partnership between the World Bank and the
International Association of Water Supply Companies in the Danube Catchment Area
(IAWD).
The objectives of this program are to support smart policies, strong utilities and sustainable
services in the Danube Region. The program enhances a dialogue around the sector
challenges with the aim of stablish policies that allow for the improvement of the sector.
For this reason, it is conformed as a partnership between national, regional and local
stakeholders. This program includes all the countries belonging to the Danube catchment
area (Danube Water Program, 2019).
The program started in 2013 and after 5 years, in December 2018, its first phase ended.
The next phase aims to promote the continuity of the sustainability impact and practices
after the program (Danube Water Program, 2019).
The project developed the DANUBIS platform (Danube Utility Benchmarking and
Information Sharing). This platform enables the comparative performance assessment of
703 utilities from all participating. Besides, it allows national institutions to carry out

comparative performance assessment, as it enables an easy data collection, validation,
management and publication of data (Danubis water platform, 2019).
DANUBIS operates with the support and partnership of IBNET. In fact, the architecture,
data collection tool and environment have been borrowed from IBNET. Most of the
indicators used in DANUBIS are IBNET indicators, although there are some additional ones
(Danubis water platform, 2019).
Contrary to PWWA Database, DANUBIS does not replicate the IBNET functionality and
rather offers some of the IBNET functionalities in its “utility database” tab (see Figure 12).
The common parts between the two systems are:
Utility level:
• “Utility Indicators” is the Utility Report from IBNET.

• “Utility Benchmarking” is the Benchmarking report from IBNET
Country level:
• Country Profile
• Country Report
Figure 12. Danubis database
Following the IBNET philosophy, DANUBIS includes two additional data analysis tools:
• Utility Performance Scorecard: provides a simple overview of the company’s

performance, service charge and areas of improvement compared to similar
companies. It rates the overall performance of a utility as poor, average o

increasing, compared to similar utilities from the Danube Water Program and from
its past values (see Figure 13 right).
• Utility Benchmarking Report: creates a benchmarking report from all the utility’s
areas. It includes a time trend analysis, strengths and weakness analysis and a
comparison of the performance with the best and average values from the Danube
water program (see Figure 13 left).
Figure 13. Strength and weakness analysis (left) and overall performance of a utility (right)
DANUBIS can be considered a spin-off of IBNET. However, its regional scope and the fact
that it is embedded within the Danube Water Program seem to provide the tools with a
purpose. The data are used to elaborate national and regional reports and utilities and
institutions seem to review the quality of the uploaded data.
Furthermore, DANUBIS is there to reflect the improvement through benchmarking that

utilities actually achieve in the DWP. It could be argued that participants in the Danube
Water Program have a sense of ownership with DANUBIS that IBNET has not achieved in
many parts of the world.
The DANUBIS and PWWA projects are also examples of a successful bottom-up model of
benchmarking and data collection efforts that feed into IBNET.
1.2.8. Regulators survey - use of performance indicators

In the world there are 177 water regulatory agencies (Baptista, 2016). Most regulators
collect data from their utilities and publish them in order to increase the transparency of
the water sector and improve the quality of the service. The impact of the results impacts
on policies.
However, the characteristics of the water regulators are diverse and there is no centralized
and public information about them. For this reason, the ITA group of the Universitat
Politecnica de Valencia carried out a survey (yet to be published) in 2018-2019 in order to

know how they undertake the quality of the service regulation and the economic
regulation. Part of the survey explores whether water regulators compare the performance
of their utilities and the methods used.
The survey was sent to 159 water regulators. 28% of them replied and reflect the regulatory
practices of 31 countries (many are regional regulators). Figure 14 shows the continent of
origin of the regulators.
2% 5%
Africa
43% America
50% Europe
Australia
Figure 14. Origin of the regulators answering the survey (ITA-UPV, internal)
As seen in Figure 15, 75% of all regulators use indicators to compare performance.
Performance assessment systems are the preferred option in the sector, although there is
a non-negligible part of regulators employing frontier efficiency methods.
5%
Frontier efficiency methods
25%
No comparative assessment performance
Performance assessment systems and frontier

64% efficiency methods
7% Performance assessment systems
Figure 15. Tecniques used by water regulators for comparative performance assessment (ITA-UPV,
internal)
As seen in Figure 16, results on comparative performance assessment have an impact on

the decision-making processes and their aim is to have a positive impact on the water
sector.

25% Set tariffs
20%
Monitor the quality of the service and improve it
5% Set tariffs, monitor the quality of the service and improve it
50%
No performance assessment
Figure 16. Role of performance assessment in the regulatory agencies (ITA-UPV, internal)
Regulators publishing their data could be considered as a market competitor for IBNET.
However, their local nature and the fact that their mission is significantly different from
IBNET’s, could characterize them as potential collaborators more than competitors.
The number of regulators in the world is increasing, and most of them do use performance
indicators. This should be seen as an opportunity for IBNET to continue its long-term
engagement with many regulators to collect high-quality data from the water sector.
In order to further illustrate these points, four regulator related initiatives are described
below as examples.
1.2.9. DiscoverWater (England and Wales)

The English and Welsh water sector is regulated by 3 different regulators: OFWAT (Office
of Water Services) is in charge of the quality of the service and economic regulation, the
Drinking water Inspectorate (DWI) monitors the drinking water compliance and the
Environmental Agency is in charge of the environmental regulation. For this reason, the
data of the performance of the sector used to be scattered in the reports of each of the 3
agencies.
DiscoverWater was created in order to centralize all data. This Project has been funded by
several governmental organizations (OFWAT, DEFRA, DWI, Environmental Agency…) and
the English and Welsh water utilities (DiscoverWater, 2020). In the website, all data from
the English and Welsh water sectors are available: water quality, quality of the service,
tariffs, customer satisfaction and wastewater discharge, etc. All data are provided by
utilities and audited by the regulators, including data quality checks. Figure 17 shows the
landing page for the website. Each section shows the average values of the sector and the
performance of all water and wastewater utilities, as seen in Figure 18.

Figure 17. DiscoverWater main webpage(DiscoverWater, 2020)

Figure 18. Real water losses (l/connection/day) (DiscoverWater, 2020)
1.2.10. ERSAR (Portugal)

ERSAR is the Portuguese water and waste regulator. Stablished in 1997 as a quality of
service regulator, it has been a promoter of sunshine regulation5 since its early creation as
a key process to drive the improvement of the water sector.
Comparative performance analysis is carried out annually since 2002 (ERSAR, 2020). Results
are displayed for all utilities for each of the 14 indicators the comparative performance
analysis system from ERSAR has. Water utilities are compared based on their urbanity
(urban, mainly urban and rural) and the area they belong to (North, Centre and Lisbon and
Alentejo and Algarve). For every performance indicator there is a traffic light band defined
5
Sunshine regulation or “naming and shaming” regulation consists in the publication and public comparison
of the performance results of all utilities (Cabrera & Cabrera Jr., 2016; Marques & Simões, 2008).

that rates the values as good (green), yellow (average) and red (poor). Figure 19 shows an
example (ERSAR, 2018a). For each utility, the indicator value is shown with the traffic light
assessment is as a backdrop.
Figure 19. Comparative performance assessment for indicator AA05: answers to customer
complaints and suggestions. Mainly urban utilities in the North area (ERSAR, 2018a)
The annual report includes a complete analysis of the Portuguese water sector (ERSAR,
2018b). Furthermore, data can be downloaded in spreadsheet format allowing for easy
analysis.
One of the main characteristics of ERSAR database is that all data are presented along their
uncertainty information (data quality). All data are provided by utilities and audited by
ERSAR
1.2.11. SISS (Chile)

SISS is the Chilean Water and Wastewater regulator. As the Chilean water sector is mainly
managed by private operators, SISS guarantees that the quality of service standards are
met, while promoting the efficiency and transparency in the sector.
For this reason, an annual comparison of performance is performed. Results are presented
in a report where the average sector performance is analysed and the utilities results are
presented in tables (see Figure 20 and Figure 21)

Figure 20. Chilean wastewater treatment coverage evolution (SISS, 2017)
Figure 21. Wastewater treatment coverage for each utility (SISS, 2017)

1.2.12. SUNASS (Peru)
SUNASS is the Peruvian Water and Wastewater regulator. As the previous regulators, it
supervises the quality of the service for all its regulated services. For this task, it uses a
comparative performance analysis system based on performance indicators. The results
are used to monitor the compliance of the quality of service. The non-compliance of the
basic quality of the service standards entails economic fines. Besides, the regulator sets for
each utility a goal for every indicator. The compliance of them has a reward in the tariffs
review.
The promotion of the quality of the service is also done by an annual exercise of sunshine
regulation and results are summarized in a report (SUNASS, 2019). The report presents an
overview the Peruvian water sector and compares the performance of each utility against
the average of its cluster. Clusters are stablished by size. It also presents a summary of each
utility data and context information.
Performance indicators are organized in performance areas (e.g. access to the services,
financial sustainability, etc.). The values of the indicators are standardized in performance
indices for each area and for the whole service. Finally, utilities are ranked according to this
global index. Figure 22 displays the score for all assessment areas, the global performance
index (IGPSS) and the position in the ranking for a utility. On the left side of the figure, the
comparison of the utility’s performance against the average performance in its cluster is
presented.
Figure 22. Performance analysis of a peruvian water utility (SUNASS, 2019)
1.2.13. EBC (European Benchmarking Co-operation)

The EBC is a European organization that organises benchmarking projects at different levels
of complexity (basic, standard and advanced). Although it is gaining popularity outside of
Europe, most participants are from European countries. The EBC benchmarking program
claims to be a process benchmarking program with a performance improvement stage.

EBC is an IBNET partner. In the program some IBNET indicators and its data collection tool
are used. EBC participant utilities are asked to share their data on a voluntary basis in IBNET,
in an attempt to increase the IBNET sample from developed countries.
Participation in the program has an associated cost and the results are not public and only
available for the participants in the program. However, aggregated results are published in
benchmarking reports for public dissemination (see Figure 23).
Figure 23. Charts from the public EBC dissemination report (EBC, 2018). Left: Affordability based
on household consumption expenditures (%).Right: Electricity use for production and distribution
per m3 water produced (kWh/m3)
1.2.14. Market position comparison

Figure 24 summarizes the different tools and programs discussed in this section with their
characteristics.
In summary, none of them are a direct competitor of IBNET, and although different
stakeholders have used them in the past and will use them in the future as complements
to the role played by IBNET, none of them provide the functionality or the information that
IBNET does.
The success or failure of IBNET cannot be then attributed to these initiatives occupying
IBNET’s space, but rather on the pure interest that stakeholders may have in IBNET itself.
On the contrary, the vast majority of these alternatives have collaborated in the past or
could collaborate with IBNET in the future.

Data Comparative
Data Data Are results Fee for
Entity Funds Scope analysis Methodology performance assessment Competitor
quality collection tool public? participants
tool ("benchmarking")
IBNET NGO (WB) Global Validity Public Public Public ü û ü N/A
check
AquaRating NGO (IADB) Global Audited Private Private Public û ü û Yes
OECD-Water statistics NGO (OECD) Global Validity Private Public Public ü û ü No

check
ADERASA BTF Association of Regional - Latin Validity Private Private Public ü û ü Partial
regulators America check
SEAWUN NGO (ADB) Regional - Validity IBNET IBNET Public ü û ü Partial
Southeast Asia check
SIASAR NGO (9 entities) Global Not known Private Public Public ü û ü No - Rural focus
PWWA Association of Regional - Validity IBNET IBNET Public ü û ü Partial

utilities Pacific check
DANUBIS NGO (WB, Regional - Validity IBNET IBNET Public ü û ü Partial
IAWD) Danube region check
DiscoverWater Regulator England and Audited Private Private Public ü û ü Partial, at a national
wales level
ERSAR Regulator Portugal Audited Private Private Public ü û ü Partial, at a national
level
SISS Regulator Chile Validity Private Private Public ü û ü Partial, at a national
check level
SUNASS Regulator Peru Validity Private Private Public ü û ü Partial, at a national
check level
EBC Company Global (mainly Validity Private Private Private Public report at ü ü No - Complementary
European) check a aggregated
level
Detailed results
are private
Figure 24. Comparison table of benchmarking and performance assessment programs and tools for the water sector.

IBNET impact 2004-2020
Assessing the overall impact of IBNET on the water sector is not an easy task and there are
several ways in which such impact could be assessed. This section explores a few of them
to obtain a thorough understanding of the relevance of IBNET since 2004.
1.3.1. Castalia survey

One obvious assessment method to determine IBNET impact would be to carry out a
survey. However, to obtain meaningful results, its scope and target audience should be
ambitious. The Castalia report (Castalia, 2012a) provides an excellent reference on the
possibilities of such a tool and a good understanding of the impact of IBNET until 2011.
The detailed results of the Castalia survey were collected in a separate document (Castalia,
2012b) and deserve some detailed analysis. The target audience of the survey was limited
to 8000 contacts on WSP’s list serve, and the survey obtained 881 responses. Castalia
focused its analysis on three target groups:
• Respondents who found benchmarking useful but did not use it in their current jobs
• Respondents who used benchmarking in their work but did not use IBNET
• Respondents who used IBNET.
Focusing on these groups might have been one of the surveys weaknesses. As previously
discussed, the survey design (¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.) somehow
ruled out anyone who did not find benchmarking useful. Although this might have
appeared as a logical filter at the time, it is also possible that a segment of the water sector
could find IBNET data useful without the need for comparisons or benchmarking.
The current IBNET website offerings, reviewed in the previous section, reinforce this
notion. Menu items like country profiles or the tariff database do not rely on the
comparison of data, and hence cannot be considered benchmarking. Additionally,
benchmarking is quite a technical term still generating confusion (Diaz, 2019) and
respondent might not have felt confident enough to ascertain its usefulness.
The way the survey was designed, if a respondent replied “no” to the question “Do you find
benchmarking information on water utilities useful”, it meant no further questions were
asked to this person. This could have introduced a bias in the target audience of the survey,
and most importantly, created a false perception on the interest some of the key actors
had in some IBNET features.
Regardless of this possible objection, the survey presented some key findings as the result
of a high number of responses from some of the key actors in the sector. One of the most

significant findings was the expected trends in benchmark use (see Figure 25). A great
majority of decision-makers, and a significant majority of advisors, saw benchmarking data
becoming more relevant in the following years.
Figure 25. Expected trends in benchmark use (Castalia, 2012b)
One of the four major gaps that the report identified was directly linked to impact.
Specifically, Gap number 1: “Most respondents don’t know about IBNET”. The report
concluded that a significant proportion of respondents did not know about IBNET.
However, some of the respondents really answered that they did not “know how to access
the data”, which the report associated to not knowing about IBNET (on the principle that
data was very easily accessible).
However, the survey also identified that from those who claimed to be benchmarking
users, a vast majority had used IBNET (Figure 26).
Figure 26. Percentage of benchmarking users who used IBNET (Castalia, 2012b)
In summary, the Castalia report led to believe that back in 2011 IBNET was one of the main
resources in the benchmarking scene (nearly 80% of benchmarking users accessed IBNET)
and although its visibility could certainly be improved among the wider water sector, it was
a well-known tool.

1.3.2. Website traffic
Probably the most accurate way of quantifying the impact of IBNET would be through the
traffic the website has generated. Since 2008, IBNET has been collecting usage statistics
through Google Analytics. This section presents some key indicators from those statistics.
Figure 27. IBNET website main statistics 2007-2020
The evolution of visits to the IBNET website from June 1st, 2007 to February 12th, 2020 was
previously presented in Figure 6. The accumulated totals in the same period are shown in
Figure 27. The main statistics are analysed as follows:
Number of users and pageviews
The total number of users in the 12-year period was 364,850 users (an average of
approximately 29,000 users per year -nearly 2500 per month-). The total number of
sessions (visits) to the website, including those by recurring users was 476,474 (an average
of roughly 38,000 sessions per year or more than 3000 per month).
The users/sessions ratio clearly indicates that the number of users is probably not a good
indicator of how many different people accessed the website6. However, the number of
sessions (visits) is extremely reliable and provides a very accurate indication of the interest
that IBNET has presented during these years.
The total number of pageviews in the referral period was 1,589,520, averaging 3.34 pages
per session. This corresponds to the number of different pages that each user has accessed
6
Although Google has some means to identify recurring users, sometimes it is impossible to identify a returning
users, and it is quite likely that a large portion of the “individual” users recorded by the statistics are really
returning visitors.

in each visit. The number of pages per visit is greatly influenced by the way the website is
programmed.
In the current version of IBNET, it is difficult to access any significant information without
at least generating 3 o 4 pageviews. However, a returning user may access information
quicker.
Following the time evolution, it should also be noted that the averages have been reduced
significantly during the 2016-2020 period due to a decreased traffic (that was already linked
to a lack of data updates at the beginning of this section).
A look at data beyond averages shows a very interesting picture (see Figure 28). Over
30,000 sessions -corresponding to a 6%- correspond to users that accessed IBNET 9 or more
times, accounting for over 194,000 -or more than 12%- pageviews.
Considering that many users return visits may not have been tracked by Google (due to
changes in IP address and long timespans), this indicates that some of the IBNET users make
a very intensive use of the tool.
Figure 28. Number of session and pageviews per user in IBNET 2007-2020.
This is further confirmed by the engagement table observed in Figure 29. Although a
significant number of sessions (68%) only view the landing page of IBNET, the very serious
users of the system really make an intensive use of IBNET, with a significant number of
pageviews. As a matter of fact, a third of the total pageviews in this period have been
generated by only 13,408 sessions (those with over 20 pageviews).

Figure 29. User engagement in the IBNET website
Session duration and bounce rate
The session duration (average time a user spends at IBNET) it is a few seconds under 3
minutes. An average session of 2-3 minutes can be considered good as an industry standard
(SPINUTECH, 2020).
The bounce rate (users that only view the landing page) is quite high at 68,17%, something
that was already obvious from Figure 29. The bounce rate somehow indicates when a user
does not find in the landing page the information that was expected, or it could also
indicate that the landing page provides all the information that was needed.
68% could be considered a high bounce rate by the industry standard of 50%, although
some industries may reach 65% (SPINUTECH, 2020).
However, the tariff database may have distorted the bounce rate indicator, as its pages are
not included in the google statistics engine and those users clicking on the tariff database
from the main IBNET landing page could be counted as bouncing off the site.

Figure 30. Bounce rate by user origin in IBNET website
Further insight behaviour is provided by Figure 30. The lowest bounce rate (51.11%) is the
one from those users that have been referred to IBNET by other websites. A close second
comes from users accessing IBNET from social networks. The bounce rate of users accessing
via a web search (organic search) or typing directly the website URL (direct) is about 60%.
Finally, the users that find IBNET less interesting are those that receive the website link
through email (72.73% of them do not make it past the landing page).
Language and geographical distribution
Language seems to represent a barrier in access to IBNET and there seems to be a clear
bias of users towards English. Figure 31 shows the percentage of IBNET users by language
and English represents the language of the majority of users (48,5% considering US and GB
English). Spanish is the second language with about 22% of the users.
Figure 31. IBNET users by language

These figures seem to indicate that English speaking users are more likely to use IBNET. In
addition to number of users, the impact achieved byIBNET seems to also depend on
language.
Figure 32. Top 10 countries by number of users in IBNET
Figure 32 shows the top 10 countries by number of users (the complete list can be found
in Annex a). Interestingly 5 of the top 10 countries are Spanish speaking countries, including
Mexico at the top of the list7. However, all of them have high bounce rates and shorter
session durations than the United States, the United Kingdom or India.
Richer countries with languages other than English (including Spain) present better
indicators than Latin American countries, but still below the averages from native English-
speaking countries.
In the longer list, there are notable exceptions like Japan, sitting at number 20, with a
bounce rate of only 39.69% and average visit time of over 7 minutes.
These figures seem to indicate that a translation of the IBNET website into other languages
(Spanish being the obvious first choice) could notably increase use and visits.
7
A possible explanation to the high number of users from some countries could come from the location of the
VPN servers of key institutions. For instance, IDB (Mexico, 1st), CAF (Venezuela, 9th), EBRD, OECD and
IFC (France, 7th). If we accept this as a valid thesis, then one of the notions most often repeated about IBNET
-it is mainly used by academics and consultants- quickly fades away.

1.3.3. Internet searches
In 2012, the Castalia survey (Castalia, 2012b) asked relevant stakeholders whether they
envisioned a greater or lesser use of benchmarking in the future (see Figure 25). The
response indicated a bright future for benchmarking, especially from the decision-makers.
However, the 2019 report by Carlos Diaz on the continuation of IBNET (Diaz, 2019), claimed
that benchmarking was “losing the popularity that was gained in the 90’s”.
A good way to gauge the evolution of the interest in benchmarking, and determine future
prospects, is to determine the volume of internet searches containing some keywords
related to IBNET. This was done using the Google Trends tool (Google, 2020c). The tool
allows to search for significant keywords that have been used to search the Google engine
all the way back to 2004.
Figure 33 shows the searches for the term “IBNET” since 2004. A clear downward trend can
be seen from the initial spikes in 2004 until around 2010. After this date, the trend is more
or less stabilized.
Figure 33. Google internet searches for “IBNET”. 2004-2020 (Google, 2020c)
When considering the post-Castalia period, from 2012 onwards, the volume of searches
has remained more or less constant, with a significant increase in the last few months as
shown in Figure 34. It could be argued that although IBNET is nowadays being searched
quite less than a decade ago, its popularity has remained constant in the last 8 years.

Figure 34. Google internet searches for “IBNET”. 2012-2020 (Google, 2020c)
Another interesting search pattern was discovered when comparing the internet searches
“IBNET” and “water benchmarking” (Figure 35). Despite being the generic, water
benchmarking has been always been below the volume of searches when compared to
IBNET. This reinforces the popularity of the IBNET brand and the impact on the
benchmarking world. Interestingly, the search trend for “water benchmarking” has
experienced a similar downward trend, stabilizing during the 2010’s.
Figure 35. Google internet searches for “IBNET” (blue) vs “water benchmarking” (red) 2004-2020
(Google, 2020c)
When searching for the term “benchmarking” (Figure 36), the origin of some of the
comments discussed earlier can be easily understood. Benchmarking as a technique has
experienced a significant loss of popularity since the early 2000’s (from a peak in 2004, the
searches are now down a 75% of their initial values).

Figure 36. Google internet searches for “benchmarking” 2004-2020 (Google, 2020c)
However, benchmarking can be applied to any sector and the general interest in
benchmarking goes well beyond the water sector. Figure 37 shows a comparison in
searches between “benchmarking” and “water benchmarking” with the second one being
well below the first one since 2004.
Figure 37. Google internet searches for “benchmarking” (blue) vs “water benchmarking” (red)
2004-2020 (Google, 2020c)
Furthermore, the benchmarking technique as developed in the 80’s (Camp, 1989) is more
about improving performance through the adaptation of best practices than about
comparing metrics. A decline in “benchmarking” searches may be more related to process
benchmarking (or other benchmarking searches, for instance IT related) than the actual
comparison of key performance indicators.
Water services are quite particular, being provided as natural monopolies in most places.
Therefore, the comparison of indicators (benchmarking, yardstick competition, etc.) is
regarded as the only solution to incentivize efficiency and to create artificial competition.
For this reason, the search for “water indicators” (Figure 38) appears to be much more
stable in searches since 2006-2008 (for instance, 2006 was the year the second edition of
the IWA manual on performance indicators was released). This would allow to conclude

that the interest in the data provided by IBNET (water indicators after all) is not fading at
all, although the term “benchmarking” is certainly losing popularity.
Figure 38. Google internet searches for “water indicators” 2004-2020 (Google, 2020c)
This last thought is further reinforced by Figure 39, where the searches for water indicators
and IBNET are compared. Although much closer in value in the past, the graph seems to
suggest that IBNET has lost relevance in the water indicators scene within the past decade.
Figure 39. Google internet searches for “IBNET” (blue) vs “water indicators” (red) 2004-2020
(Google, 2020c)
All these graphs and conclusions should be considered with caution, as internet searches
may respond to other interests than the ones being considered in this paper. For instance,
the search “water indicators” includes all water resources indicators, sustainability
indicators, SDG6 indicators, etc.
However, their analysis with the rest of information provided in this section allows to better
understand the positioning of IBNET as a tool and the perception of the outside world
regarding IBNET.

1.3.4. Academic citations
One final way to determine the impact that IBNET has had throughout its history is to see
how many citations it received in publications. Although it could be argued that the impact
in academic works is not really relevant for the ultimate IBNET goals, it is certainly an
indicator of its popularity and relevance in the water sector.
Google Scholar allows to query the citations of a vast array of academic publications,
providing an idea of the relevance of the tool for the technical community.
The IBNET Blue Book (Danilenko et al., 2014) has received a total of 172 citations according
to Google Scholar (Google, 2020b). A good benchmark for this would be the IWA manual
of best practices. For instance, the IWA manual Performance indicators for water supply
services (Alegre et al., 2016) has received a total of 813 citations, almost 5 times more8.
However, the IWA manual from the same series on Benchmarking Water Services (Cabrera
et al., 2011) has only received 50 citations. Therefore, the impact of the World Bank
publication is very significant.
The keywords IBNET + water9 have been cited 1010 times in academic papers and books.
As a contrast, the keywords IWA + “performance indicators, have been cited 1470 times.
Once again, IBNET stacks up very well versus probably the sector standard represented by
the IWA works.
In conclusion, since its creation, IBNET has certainly become an important reference tool
for research and development on the topic of benchmarking water services.
8
It should be considered that while the IWA manual was published in 2000 in its first edition, the blue book
first edition dates from 2010.
9
Searching for “IBNET” returns some results that are related to other initiatives outside the water sector.

2. VALUE PROPOSITION OF IBNET
Determining the dimension of the true value proposition of IBNET is fundamental to

establish its future. Understanding the current value to key stakeholders and its
shortcomings is crucial to devise the changes required to improve that proposition and
enable a successful IBNET 2.0.
Value of IBNET for stakeholders
2.1.1. The Castalia report

The most systematic analysis carried out to date on IBNET and its value to different
stakeholders was the Castalia report (Castalia, 2012a). The report, with a similar goal to this
paper, tried to establish how valuable was IBNET to different users and identified some
shortcomings of the system.
Although 8 years have passed, some of the findings of the report are still valid today, and
they deserve to be summarized here:
Audience analysis
A fundamental part of understanding the value of IBNET for users is identifying the target
audience and their need for IBNET. The report identified what actors, by using better
information could have the greatest potential to improve utility performance (Castalia,
2012b).
The actor groups that were considered in the study were the following ones:
• Academia
• Civil Society Organization
• Consultant
• Donor, Development Organization, Multilateral Development Bank
• Ministry of Finance, Planning, or similar
• Ministry of Water, Water agency or similar
• Water and/or Sanitation Utility
• Water Sector Regulator
• Water Utility Association
This summary of the potential users for IBNET would be still valid today. Understanding
what their needs are and how IBNET can satisfy them is an important part of the equation.
However, the report went a little bit further by identifying the four key actors (in bold in

the list) that “(…) by using better information, can have the greatest potential to improve
utility performance”.
The way the aforementioned condition was framed, is important to gauge the contribution
of IBNET to the Bank’s strategic objective. After all, when discussing the value proposition,
IBNET should not be judged so much by its quality as a benchmarking tool, but its
contribution to the improvement of water services.
When discussing the value proposition, IBNET should not be

judged so much by its quality as a benchmarking tool, but its
contribution to the improvement of water services.
This notion was made very clear in the way the report set its goals, based on this purpose
(Figure 40). Those goals (targeting the right actors and providing the right information) still
remain as important today as they were 8 years ago.
Figure 40. The purpose of IBNET (Castalia, 2012a)
However, from the previous list, only utility managers -and perhaps regulators- can directly
influence utility performance. Furthermore, only those two actors would understand the
intricacies of a benchmarking project, drawing cause-effect relationships and using full-
fledged benchmarking as a tool.
The study (rightly) concluded that all actors had contributed to improved utility
performance and could potentially benefit from IBNET. Furthermore, the Marketing and
Development Strategy laid out in the report, made very clear that the key concept in IBNET
was not benchmarking itself, but rather the “information” to “affect utility performance”
directly or indirectly (Figure 41).

Figure 41. Key questions for the market analysis (Castalia, 2012b).
However, when the survey was laid out for these key actors to provide valuable feedback
on IBNET, it did not capture this philosophy but was rather heavily biased towards
benchmarking as the only positive contribution from IBNET (see Figure 42).
Specifically, actors that responded “no” to the question “Do you find benchmarking
information on water utilities useful?” were not asked any further questions. Out of the 25
survey questions, 8 referred to benchmarking and only 2 used the form “indicators”.
While it is quite unlikely that this strong focus on the benchmarking concept had any
significant impact on the overall report conclusions (the Castalia report influenced the
further development of IBNET in a very positive way) it is certainly clear that even for expert
consultants in close relationship with the tool, IBNET was occupying a niche space as a
benchmarking product, and it was characterized in consequence.

Figure 42. Diagram of the Castalia survey (Castalia, 2012b).
The only question that remains to be answered is, to which extent this strong niche
characterization pushed away other actors and stakeholders from IBNET because it was
only “benchmarking data” and not useful “information” that could have contributed to
generate positive change and performance improvement in utilities and the water sector
in general (access and visualization of information may have played an important role). In
an effort to display data as a comparison between utilities, IBNET might have pushed away
some of its users).
Despite these formal issues, throughout the report, it was implicit that IBNET (or an
improved version of IBNET) was of potential value to all the stakeholders group, and that
all it needed was improvements, but the potential or value of the tool was never in question
considering the answers collected through the survey and the report.
This section will use a similar approach in trying to determine how IBNET can better fulfil
its purpose by catering the right information to the right actors.

IBNET Gaps
In order to identify the improvements IBNET needed, the Castalia report identified the
following key shortcomings for IBNET at the time (Figure 43):
Figure 43. Gaps identified through the Castalia survey and interviews (Castalia, 2012a)
These gaps were taken into account to elaborate the Development and Marketing Strategy
object of that report, and that was summarized in the Terms of Reference for this paper
(World Bank Water Global Practice, 2020).
1. Improve the reliability of IBNET data: (1) disclose information on reliability of

existing data under the current system, or (2) establish an IBNET benchmarking tool
that is housed within regulatory institutions to gain the latest, quality information.
2. Improve functionality of IBNET's website and provide information on good practices
3. Increase target market awareness of IBNET
4. Provide data that is more complete over time and countries
Some of these recommendations helped to re-shape IBNET, however, due to financing

constraints not all of them were implemented (World Bank Water Global Practice, 2020).
As a consequence, IBNET in 2020 addresses some of the gaps identified in 2012. The
website is more functional, can tailor data to better suit the needs of different stakeholders
and contains more benchmarking good practices.
However, some key gaps remain in place:
• Data, far from being more complete presents now some serious gaps in the time
series since 2016

• Data quality continues to be a concern, as outlined in the Diaz report (Diaz, 2019)
• Market awareness of IBNET seems to have remained the same
2.1.2. The Diaz report

The most recent report of IBNET was the one elaborated in December 2019 to consider the
different options for its continuation (Diaz, 2019). The report was based on a desk review
and interviews with key informants and experts.
The report identified the following gaps:
1. A conceptually and technologically outdated tool.

The report claimed that IBNET reflected the benchmarking ideas of the 90’s and the
World Bank of the 90’s, adding that benchmarking has lost its popularity and
become an imprecise concept nowadays.
This is somehow in contradiction with the forecasts that the Castlia report put in
place for Benchmarking in the 2010’s decade. The analysis carried out in section 1
of this report, showed that the popularity of benchmarking has indeed faded for
most industries, but in the water sector due to its particular nature it remains quite
significant.
2. Has only worked out the database value proposition

The system is mostly recognized as a global database, despite other elements. As a
consequence, the popularity of IBNET greatly depends on the database being
updated and key database attributes (reliability of the data, representativeness,
etc.).
3. A one-size-fits-all tool
The report argued that the level of detail of IBNET should be revised as the scope
of the tool may be too general for some but too difficult for others. It was proposed
that the database perhaps should be focused on a limited number of the most
important and less contestable KPIs at the global level, while encouraging more
detailed benchmarking efforts at local level.
4. A public good with limited reach

Diaz made a case about the fact that IBNET was a public good (financed with public
money) but was not capturing or consolidating all World Bank’s efforts to collect
water utility data, nor was the instrument to turn all those data into a public good.

5. A tool with communication, design, institutional and governance caveats
This point argued about a lack of understanding of IBNET’s setup and objectives.
The target audience of IBNET is not clear and there is not a clear governance
structure. Finally, the positioning of IBNET is not adequate, as it is recognized as a
global database when it was meant to be a network of supported benchmarking
initiatives.
6. A tool of huge potential but no commercial value

The report also claimed that IBNET has no real competitors, but some elements
have substitutes in the market. IBNET has no commercial value and it is doubtful
whether the current users would be willing to financially support it.
However, the report also identified several positive points for IBNET. It confirmed that
IBNET is being used by a significant number of users and institutions and that there is no
real alternative for IBNET.
In some way, experts quoted by the report stated that IBNET was useful, but somehow
expressed that they wished it would be more useful. At the heart of the criticism, the
quality of the data was a recurring theme (an issue already identified in the Castalia report
of 2012). Additionally, the report was the first one to point out that IBNET has positioned
itself as an online information tool rather than a benchmarking tool, and many found this
confusing, especially considering the name and branding of the tool.
2.1.3. The value of IBNET in 2020

Understanding the current value of IBNET to stakeholders, its shortcomings and strengths,
is fundamental to design the next stage for the tool.
1. IBNET is used by a significant number of users and institutions

It is very difficult to find a significant publication or presentation on urban water
data in which IBNET data have not been used directly or indirectly. The water sector
knows IBNET is a go-to data repository for water services and part of this impact is
traceable through internet traffic and searches, citations, etc.
2. There is no real alternative to IBNET

IBNET is the only one of its kind. Limited regional alternatives to IBNET exist, but
there is no global counterpart. The external threats to IBNET are very limited,
almost non-existent. IBNET may be at risk of losing its relevance if its value
proposition is weak, and in that case, the void will be occupied by one or several
other tools. But currently, none of them do what IBNET does.

3. Expectations management is at the core of most of IBNET structural problems
The problem with the data quality of IBNET was a significant part of the conclusions
of the Castalia report (Castalia, 2012a). However, and despite significant efforts in
this direction, the issue still remains today. As a matter of fact, IBNET will probably
never be able to provide better quality data, unless the World Bank collects it
directly at a tremendous expense.
However, it may be argued that the problem is actually about managing the
expectations. Expectations that IBNET is a fully consistent benchmarking system,
with exactly the same definitions applied to all its 5000+ utilities, with data being
collected meticulously and reported every year and with the possibility to directly
compare the performance of all those utilities. And the greatest expectation of all,
that all data in IBNET share the same accuracy or certainty. IBNET cannot guarantee
any of the above, and users should therefore not expect it.
4. The value of IBNET decreases exponentially when data are not updated
Every month that IBNET data are not updated at the 2016 levels, the outside world
perception is that the system may be soon (or is already) abandoned. The
decreasing graph on the front page reinforces that feeling.
IBNET’s value lies mostly in its data, and every year new performance data are
produced. Maintaining a constant and reliable inflow volume of data should be a
topmost priority for IBNET.
5. IBNET greatest potential in improving water services is not through individual

benchmarking
IBNET has been influencing the water sector for decades. And the most relevant
examples of such influence did not come from pure benchmarking exercises where
utilities compared their performance to others’.
IBNET has become a standard, it has led to spin-off benchmarking efforts like
DANUBIS or PWWA, influenced the performance assessment systems of water
utilities for countries like Uruguay, where OSE started reporting 140 indicators to
IBNET annually, (The World Bank, 2013). IBNET data are used by many (if not all)
water relevant organizations in the world. Regulatory agencies partner with IBNET
in their efforts to improve water services in many countries in the world.
In summary, IBNET may be the International Benchmarking Network, but it is

achieving its mission through additional channels other than benchmarking.

6. IBNET is a key tool for policy making
IBNET is the only global tool dealing with urban water data. Although policy making
is often dominated by the need to have aggregated figures, the truth is that specific
actions require the detail of utility level information. IBNET provides both.
As a matter of fact, IBNET is an excellent tool for policy analysis, and for instance is
cited as an example of sector-specific indicators databases which have been used
quite extensively to enhance such policy analysis (Baland et al., 2020). However,
while academics use IBNET to analyze policies, the financing and implementation of
such policies by decision-makers is often not supported by any data (even when
supported by the World Bank).
This needs to change. And as stated in the World Bank’s water website, “the world
needs a fundamental shift in how it understands, values and manages water.
Understanding water means making evidence-based decisions about water using
strengthened water data” (The World Bank, 2020).
Although IBNET is already influencing policy making in the sector to some extent,
there is a clear opportunity for IBNET to become a key policy making tool. Reliable
data about service access, quality and performance of the services could be used by
governments (including their finance ministries) to allocate resources and providing
quality information could become a condition for receiving funds from upper level
of government. IBNET is in a unique position to provide aggregated data to take the
big picture into consideration, but also to focus on the situation at the utility level
to be able to act locally.
7. IBNET indicators have become a standard, but new indicators must be added to
support new IBNET roles
Any performance assessment system with performance indicators faces at one
stage the revision debate. Should the definitions of the KPI be updated? A new
evolution of IBNET is an excellent opportunity to include new indicators that are
aligned with the Bank’s strategy.
A quick look at the World Bank’s water website (The World Bank, 2020) immediately
brings a few key topics to the table (e.g. safely managed water and sanitation
services, resilience, sustainable infrastructure, etc.). These emerging topics should

be on the table in a future revision of IBNET. However, concepts need to be
translated into indicators and only those that can be effectively measured and
implemented should be added to the IBNET system.
The capacity of IBNET to influence global water policy should not be

underestimated. Incorporating key metrics to the system could effectively
contribute to raise awareness and focus on strategic topics.
While the evolution of a system like IBNET is desirable, it must be undertaken with
extreme care and avoiding a revolution. IBNET indicators have become a standard
and are the basis for performance evaluation of water services in many parts of the
world. Replacing well-stablished indicators with new ones should be avoided unless
there is something fundamentally wrong with the old metric.
SWOT Analysis
A SWOT is included in this section to understand the strengths and weaknesses of the
current system taking into account all the facts presented until now. Additionally, the
analysis takes into account the potential opportunities for IBNET in the future but also the
threats that the system may face depending on the solutions adopted.

IBNET SWOT ANALYSIS
Strengths Weaknesses
• Unique product with no competitors • Data quality issues

• Largest database in the urban water sector • Product placement excessively linked to
benchmarking
• Can be franchised with successful regional spin-
off implementation • Business model not suitable for sustainable
self-funding
• Significant in-house know-how and experience
• Project mission (improvement of water
• Performance assessment system considered a services) only achievable by indirect means
standard and used extensively
• Absence of external technical oversight
• Numerous global contacts and agreements with
data providers • Lack of governance structure
• Successful diversification into tariffs database • Dependence on third parties for quality data
• Longest running project in the sector • Product difficult to transfer to a third party
• World Bank support • Not fully embraced by the World Bank
• Brand recognition • Tool’s success not directly quantifiable
Opportunities Threats
• Digital water leading to more and better data in • Benchmarking concept dominating the
the sector product narrative limits growth and change.
• Regional spin-offs a proven option to generate • AquaRating grows exponentially and is able to
local change provide intelligence on the urban water sector
• Can be rebranded as a water • Increasing data gaps in 2020 and beyond lead
knowledge/intelligence tool to support policy to further traffic and popularity loss, project
making becomes irrelevant
• Can be re-aligned to respond to internal WB • Lack of embracement from the World Bank+
demands: support country engagement process,
underwriting process, input for project preparation • Lack of funding
and publications • Data quality issues cannot be solved
• Addressing quality issues can significantly • Regional spin-offs a proven option to
increase acceptance generate local change
• Third-party (e.g. IWA) operation of IBNET a • Organizational know-how (staff) is lost
possibility
• Product and concept become stagnant
• Can be reconfigured to consolidate all World Bank
water data efforts
Figure 44. IBNET SWOT Analysis

The role of The World Bank in IBNET
The IBNET brand is irreversibly linked to the World Bank, and IBNET cannot exist in its
current conception without the financial and reputational support from the Bank.
Currently, the business model of IBNET is non-existent. Described as a public good (Diaz,
2019), the information provided by IBNET is supplied free of charge and the sustainability
of the system requires continuous funding. There are no identified customers and it is very
questionable whether there would be an actual market for the current product (at least in
a decentralized model with thousands of individual customers). This does not mean that
the information provided by IBNET does not have a value, but with the current format it
would be difficult to monetize it.
As a consequence, the dependence of IBNET from the World Bank’s financial input is total.
Maintaining the operations of IBNET requires a significant annual budget, and furthermore,
any upgrades or changes to the system would come at an additional cost, as explored in
the Castalia and Diaz reports (Castalia, 2012a; Diaz, 2019).
IBNET institutional dependence from the Bank is not limited to funds. Many parties provide
data to IBNET because the World Bank owns and supports the tool. If IBNET was hosted by
another party (especially a commercial party) data collection would certainly become more
difficult and/or costly.
It is difficult to imagine a future solution in which the World Bank is not the guardian of
IBNET. In such a role the Bank will always be in a perfect position to:
§ Control the nature of the tool, exercise quality control and avoid reputational risks
§ Ensure an adequate flow of data to update IBNET
§ Guarantee that the strategic objectives of IBNET are aligned with the Bank’s
strategy
Additionally, IBNET has been always operated and maintained by World Bank staff, with
occasional support from contractors. This has created a significant amount of in-house
know-how that is critical to the success of IBNET. However, it could be argued that despite
25 years of operating with this model, a third-party operation (with solid World Bank
governance) could be considered as an alternative.

When the Inter-American Development Bank asked water utilities if a third-party could
operate AquaRating, replies showed that in order to maintain trust in the system, the array
of available options was quite limited. The International Water Association was chosen
following the direct suggestion of several water services operators.
In the case of IBNET, a potential third-party operation could be possible, but without
transferring the ownership or governance of the system, which should continue to be
under the Bank’s supervision with an adequate governance structure.
Externalizing the operation of IBNET has obvious pros and cons, and they should be
explored with care before initiating any changes. There may be opportunities in the future
to explore such model as, for instance, IWA is establishing a new Water Intelligence Unit in
Nanjing (China) and could be approached as an operator of IBNET (as this would align with
IWA’s strategy).

3. WAY FORWARD: IBNET 2.0
The current state of IBNET, with 3 years of data draught and a significant loss in website
traffic, call for immediate action. However, the recent studies commissioned by the World
Bank (Diaz, 2019, and this position paper in 2020) indicate the willingness to consider
changes to IBNET and not simply maintain the status quo.
Unfortunately, these changes cannot be delayed much longer for the sake of IBNET’s
survival. However, it would also be a mistake to rush changes without a clear strategic
vision on what it is that IBNET needs to achieve in the future.
The successful roll out of IBNET 2.0 will require a clear strategic plan, aligned with the World
Bank’s water strategy, with a clear understanding of the ultimate purpose and audience of
the program, the associated costs and the expected outcomes and targets to be achieved.
The successful roll out of IBNET 2.0 will require a clear

strategic plan, aligned with the World Bank’s water strategy,
with a clear understanding of the ultimate purpose and
audience of the program, the associated costs and the
expected outcomes and targets to be achieved
The following sections will present a series of proposed updates and changes as an array of
possible options to be implemented in IBNET. In any case, it should be made very clear that
IBNET, given its characteristics, fundamentally makes sense as a strategic program. As such,
the decisions on the future of the project should be based on how it contributes to the
long-term key objectives of the Bank.
Proposed updates
Before considering new features, this section will assess the current components of IBNET
to propose options for relatively minor updates (in functionality or data content). These
updates could be achieved without drastically changing the core functionality of the
current IBNET platform, and should be considered as the least disruptive options for
intervention.

3.1.1. Including data quality information
Data quality has been at the core of most criticisms to IBNET since the early days. Both the
Castalia and Diaz reports (Castalia, 2012a; Diaz, 2019) highlighted the importance of the
issue. The problems outlined in 2012 have not improved despite significant efforts from
the IBNET team to put in place data validation processes. The general perception is that
IBNET is a mixed bag of data regarding quality.
Additionally, there is very little that the IBNET team can do to improve data quality in origin.
Quality data is expensive to collect (sensors, meters, information systems, qualified staff,
time, etc.) and unless this issue becomes part of a larger project supported by the Bank,
and improving data quality is strongly encouraged, the data included in IBNET are not likely
to improve in quality in the near future.
However, there are plenty of good data in IBNET. The critical issue with IBNET is that users
are never sure about how good (or true) a certain indicator value is. The answer to this is
data quality information.
The critical issue with IBNET is that users are never sure about
how good (or true) a certain indicator value is. The answer to
this is data quality information.
The importance of data quality was initially highlighted by the OFWAT10, and has been since
strongly promoted by IWA (Alegre et al., 2016). Following these guidelines, IBNET would
have to categorize the information according to the quality of data in origin, so users could
assess how trustworthy the indicators were.
This concept is applied nowadays by regulators like ERSAR (Portugal) or systems like
AquaRating. However, its implementation is not easy:
1. Costly. Reporting data quality is twice as time consuming for utilities as reporting
the metrics alone.
2. Complicated. Unless the system is well defined, sometimes reporting on data
quality can become a major obstacle for reporting or information. This can lead to
gaps in data quality reporting, or simply wrongfully reported data quality, defeating
the original purpose of the system.
10
OFWAT introduced the concept of “confidence grading” to assess the quality of the data submitted by the
utilities that was to be published in its annual report (Office of Water Services, 1998).

3. Politically sensitive. No one wants to be listed in IBNET with a side note that says
that the information submitted is of low quality. Since reporting is fundamentally
voluntary, this could reduce the number of datasets submitted to IBNET.
Despite the significant obstacles that would need to be addressed, this is still the easiest
and most feasible solution for the data quality issue. Clear advantages of this solution
over others are:
a) All data continue to be valid. Indicating the quality of the data implies that all
data can be accepted. Unreliable figures will simply be tagged as such. If a
minimum quality threshold was to be set, this would imply rejecting data from
some utilities (usually those with the least resources).
b) Drives data quality improvement. Recording data quality will eventually lead to
improving the processes in the utilities to have good data. A good example is
AquaRating where data quality is factored in the rating. As a consequence,
utilities improve the quality of their data over time11. This would have a positive
effect on IBNET as a policy making tool, since collected data would improve over
time, and information obtained from the system would be more reliable.
c) Reduces reputational risk. Currently, IBNET presents data from over 5000
utilities, spread across 25 years, and some users might think that the data has
been validated by the World Bank. On the issue of data quality in IBNET, it is
stated (Danilenko et al., 2014):
“IBNET therefore invests substantial effort in making sure the data

are of the highest possible quality and accurately and adequately
reflect a reporter’s performance. IBNET data come from a variety of
sources, some of which have excellent quality assurance procedures
(as in the case of regulatory data) and others of which follow less-
sound procedures. To correct for this, IBNET continually improves its
data-checking procedures and makes users aware of the quality (or
lack of quality) of particular data. The need for rigorous quality
assurance procedures is always balanced against the need to avoid
discouraging potentially valuable data sources from participating.”
11
The concept that was used when developing AquaRating was that good data quality implied sound
management. As a consequence, it was considered when determining the rating of a utility. In other words,
utilities can improve their rating simply by improving their data collecting and handling procedures.

By clearly and explicitly reporting the quality of the data stored in IBNET, the exposure of
the Bank is reduced, as it is no longer the task of IBNET to have data-checking procedures
in place12
The proposed changes to the system are:

§ A certain data quality scale will need to be elaborated, so every metric will have its
“trust factor” easily accessible and clearly displayed.
§ The data quality grading should be designed to communicate a positive message to
utilities submitting data, encouraging them to improve data quality with time. An
expected data quality level could be communicated depending on the
characteristics of the utility (e.g. utilities in Africa could be informed that their
expected data quality level is X).
§ Whenever data have been modified by IBNET (to correct inconsistencies or to adapt
them to the IBNET definitions) this should be prominently displayed with a direct
link to the original (raw) data.
In other words, the idea is not to improve the quality of the data collected by IBNET (at
least not directly) but disclosing to the user how good the underlying information is. This
should be considered an additional dimension of transparency for water services, with their
performance information made available but also the information about how reliable those
data are.
The idea is not to improve the quality of the data collected by

IBNET but disclosing to the user how good the underlying
information is. This should be considered an additional
dimension of transparency for water services, with their
performance information made available but also the
information about how reliable those data are.
Poor data quality is not an exclusive issue of IBNET. It is a recurrent shortcoming in the
water sector. IBNET probably presents data much more accurate than the data used for the
Joint Monitoring Program in SDG assessment. This is also a path for improvement within
the sector, and the first step is to acknowledge the problem, addressing it by displaying
data quality information and stimulating the different actors to work towards its solution.
12
These procedures could still be maintained, but they would be in addition to clear data quality reporting,
acting as a backup system.

3.1.2. Presenting raw data13 and definitions
In a traditional benchmarking project, definitions of indicators are usually agreed upon by
participants, discussed during an initial workshop and reviewed after the data have been
collected (Cabrera et al., 2011). Even then, data consistency may turn out to be a problem
and requires a significant amount of effort by the project coordinators.
IBNET contains data from over 5000 utilities in 150 different countries. The main
coordination mechanism is the toolkit used to upload the data. It would not be surprising
if some of the reported data were not 100% consistent with the definitions.
However, not all data used in IBNET comes from utilities applying the toolkit definitions.
Regulatory agencies are a significant source of data for IBNET, and although they may share
the IBNET definitions to some extent, some indicators will be, at least, slightly different.
However, IBNET needs to unify all this information in order to allow the comparison of data
originated in these multiple sources. Data are converted to the IBNET definitions and in this
process the quality of the information obtained from this data may suffer. By offering
access to the raw data (both metrics and the definitions used) and the transformation that
the data suffered to be included in the system, IBNET could achieve three things:
1. Raw data can be more useful than its formatted counterpart. In the capable hands
of knowledgeable professionals, raw data presents more options than aggregated
or transformed data. As mentioned in the Diaz report, “Educated researchers (PhDs,
econometricians, data crunchers) who gained access to IBNET raw data had less
problems to go around these data issues. They know how to work with incomplete
databases, get rid of outlawyers and make sense of imperfect information.” (Diaz,
2019)
2. Presenting the raw data and how it was transformed, can also explain some of the
quality issues found by IBNET users. While the IBNET conversion may be useful for
comparisons, understanding the conversion process may provide insight about
potential errors, estimations or assumptions.
3. The raw data in its original form may be of more use to some users than the
converted IBNET data. If IBNET becomes a data repository, its search capabilities
could make it easier to find original data from regulator A or project B than going
13
Presenting “raw” data means displaying unprocessed data. Figures that have not been processed to fit IBNET
definitions. Another way to describe this process would be “include all original data sources”. An example on
the inclusion of raw data, would be to link the original report by a national regulator (with all the original data
and indicators) downloadable next to the figures used in IBNET from that same dataset.

to the individual sites where those data are published. Once again, the needs of
users are not limited to the comparison of performance of utilities or
benchmarking.
It should be made very clear that this update would not require to remove or change the
current IBNET data. Raw data should be offered as complementary information, just like
the quality of data information. When accessing certain IBNET records from a specific
utility, IBNET should offer in addition to the IBNET indicators (and next to them, one click
away) the original definitions, the raw data, the quality of data grading and how the data
were transformed to be included in IBNET.
3.1.3. Completing data gaps and resuming data collection

There is a quite urgent need to complete the missing years in the IBNET database. As shown
earlier (Figure 5 and Figure 6), the absence of updates has already contributed to the
reduction of traffic in IBNET.
Data collection should be resumed as soon as possible, including the gap years where
almost no information has been added (2016-2019). The value of IBNET resides in having
continuous data from several systems.
Additionally, there are some associated risks with leaving the system incomplete on the
medium term.
On one hand the agreements and connections with third parties (regulatory agencies,
utility associations, etc.) that have been built over the years may suffer. These
organizations may move onto other performance assessment systems, or simply abandon
their data collection efforts.
On the other hand, users may stop using IBNET thinking that data collection efforts stopped
in 2016, and recurrent traffic will be lost. This is probably one of the reasons for the recent
traffic loss but prolonging the situation will accentuate this trend.
IBNET has been (and still is) an opportunity for collecting relevant data on the sector. In its
most successful data collection period (2012-16) IBNET was included in water projects from
the Bank, while regional versions of the program were created (e.g. DANUBIS). There is a
strong link between the alignment of the Bank’s projects with IBNET and the ability to
successfully collect large amounts of sector data.
This creates a virtuous circle, as the more water-related projects that include IBNET
requirements, the better the information available on the sector is, and the easier it is to
make adequate decisions regarding new projects.

There is a strong link between the alignment of the Bank’s
projects with IBNET and the ability to successfully collect
large amounts of sector data. This creates a virtuous circle,
as the more water-related projects that include IBNET
requirements, the better the information available on the
sector is, and the easier it is to make adequate decisions
regarding new projects.
Conceptual changes to the system

This section presents options to revise the current scope for IBNET. These options should,
in any case, be reviewed and considered under the light of a new strategic plan for IBNET.
Only proposals aligned with the new strategy should be implemented.
3.2.1. IBNET concept change and repositioning

As presented in different sections in this document, although benchmarking has been at
the core of IBNET since the beginning, positioning the program exclusively as a
benchmarking initiative might have hurt it in the long run.
A general perception exists that IBNET is already something more than a benchmarking
network. People access IBNET to obtain general information about the urban water sector
and to query its database beyond the possibility to compare data from different utilities.
However, in its branding, design, supporting material and general information, IBNET is
very much focused on benchmarking.
IBNET concept should evolve to include its nature as a knowledge product, a water
intelligence product, or a data warehouse (with all of those names representing the same
concept). Following the acknowledgement of an evolution that has taken place during
these years, IBNET should embrace its additional roles and host all information to be
considered strategic for the sector. IBNET could be the natural entry point for World Bank
water related data.
Benchmarking would be an important part of the new program, but just one part of IBNET
2.0.
IBNET concept should evolve to become a knowledge

product, a water intelligence product, or a data warehouse.
Benchmarking indicators and functionality would be a sub-
set of the new product, but not the only offering of IBNET.

This new IBNET would achieve several things by embracing data beyond benchmarking:
§ Lack of data quality would not be a deal breaker14.

§ Data not matching the IBNET definitions could be still included in IBNET, and key
stakeholders would be able to user other water sector data stored in IBNET.
§ All World Bank water related data could potentially be stored in IBNET.
§ The level of detail of the indicators would not be an issue, as long as the data are
properly organized15. Users would be able to find data with the level of detail of
their interest.
§ Reputational risk would be reduced as data would be presented "as is" with no
guarantee of quality.
§ Integration of the different existing IBNET tools would make more sense (tariffs,
cost efficiency, etc.).
§ Confusion about what is benchmarking and the role of IBNET would become a
secondary issue.
This new concept would also address situations like the one found in the current World
Bank Water landing page. By following a “data” box, the user is faced with a data interface
with no relationship to IBNET. While it immediately becomes clear that the aforementioned
interface is for all Bank indicators, IBNET is not mentioned anywhere in the page (see Figure
45). This is easy to understand for someone with a good knowledge of where the
aggregated indicators and statistics originate, and the role of IBNET, but for the occasional
user it is confusing to see water indicators at the World Bank site and see that IBNET is not
listed there.
This conceptual evolution of IBNET would represent a significant change from its current
scope. A repositioning of the product should be considered. While the IBNET brand is very
well-known and it possibly deserves to be maintained, its acronym nature could be
changed, and a new tagline created to point out the new nature of the platform.
An example that may illustrate the concept of repositioning may be found in Amazon.
Originally a bookstore (its tagline was “Earth’s biggest bookstore”), it evolved into a
superstore and beyond, and yet the original name and logo remained (even with its “a to
z” smile or arrow, so adequate for a bookstore).
14
As long as data quality information was clearly displayed along the data, IBNET could host different sets of
data, with different levels of quality. This would not be an issue as long as they did not have to be compared,
as even low-quality data may be more useful than no data at all.
15
The Diaz report criticized the “one-size-fits-all approach” of IBNET

This proposal is consistent with some of the ideas found in the Diaz report (Diaz, 2019):
§ A searchable tool of WSS datasets - how WGP data becomes a public good (IBNET
2.0.3)
§ IBNET as the World Bank tool for data collection and engagement with water
utilities and interested parties (IBNET 2.0.4)
A marketing/communications campaign should be launched to promote the new concept

behind IBNET 2.0. The campaign would also aim at recovering the IBNET users lost in the
2016-2020 period.
Figure 45. Data page linked in the World Bank Water website

3.2.2. IBNET scope and metrics
IBNET 2.0 should maintain its traditional set of indicators and definitions. They have
become a standard and changing them could have a significant impact. However, the
magnitude of the benchmarking effort will need to be established to optimize resources (if
need be) and allocate them to other initiatives within IBNET.
IBNET 2.0 should maintain its traditional set of indicators and

definitions. They have become a standard and changing them
could have a significant impact
In this sense, utilities submitting poor or incomplete data, or without a sustained effort in
time, could be excluded from the benchmarking module (and still be included in the larger
database).
The decision to enlarge the IBNET database to other topics/levels of details will need to
respond to the IBNET strategic play, in clear alignment with the World Bank strategy for
water. In other words, the datasets, metrics and key data to be incorporated into IBNET
should derive from a clear strategic goal.
An quite bold example of scope revision, would be to incorporate to IBNET the water
indicators already present in data.worldbank.org (see Figure 45), as they are clearly aligned
with Bank strategy. This would imply enlarging the urban nature of IBNET data and
including all water sector data in IBNET. The final decision may lie between the current
scope and this example.
Following this rationale, it could be interesting to consider emerging issues in WSS (such as
“safely managed” sanitation, consistent with SDG 6.2), as IBNET may play a crucial role
filling the gaps in the information obtained from other sources.
With this revised scope of IBNET, the tool would not be focused on comparison, but rather
on providing the right information to the different stakeholders needed to generate
progress in the water sector and achieving the Bank’s strategic objectives. In other words,
IBNET would be more inclusive of the sector needs. Those willing to engage in comparisons,
could still use IBNET for comparative performance assessment. However, other users in the
sector would be able to tap into IBNET as the reference urban water knowledge tool.

New knowledge products in IBNET 2.0
The conceptual and scope changes presented previously may lead to the inclusion of new
knowledge products in IBNET. In a way, IBNET already started these conceptual and scope
changes in 2016 with the introduction of the tariffs database.
The conceptual and scope changes may lead to the inclusion

of new knowledge products in IBNET. In a way, IBNET already
started these conceptual and scope changes in 2016 with the
introduction of the tariffs database.
Several options are listed in this section for additional knowledge products that could be
integrated in the IBNET information portal alongside with the benchmarking and tariffs
databases.
3.3.1. Global Water Knowledge Database

The vision of a Global Water Knowledge Database is to transform IBNET in the go-to global
source of information for water16. This would be aligned the idea expressed by Diaz (Diaz,
2019) of IBNET becoming “the central repository of the World Bank’s water utility data”,
although in this case a scope review is also recommended. For instance, IBNET could not
be limited to store data originated in the Bank, and might store any relevant water sector
data aligned with IBNET strategic objectives.
It should be clearly noted that the primary goal of these new data would not be to do
benchmarking or perform comparisons of any kind but, for instance, support policy making
by key stakeholders in the sector.
The Global Water Knowledge Database would not be able to have a closed architecture like
the benchmarking database. After all it needs to be able to store practically any kind of data
in all formats.
In such a database, almost any type of data could be stored in the system, with the endless
combinations of data elements and metrics, definitions, nature of the information
(qualitative/quantitative), even with support documents (e.g. reports, graphic analyses,
videos, etc.). Therefore, while some of the data could be entered into the database itself,
16
The scope of this database should be carefully considered as described above, as it could go from urban
services all the way to “everything water"

it must be assumed that some other information would be stored in its original format
without transferring the numerical data into the IBNET system.
It could be argued that the World Bank already hosts some of these data (FAO’s Aquastat,
JMP data, etc.) and there is no need for IBNET to duplicate this information. However, this
same argument could be used against IBNET itself (a significant amount of the data in IBNET
already exists in the individual websites of regulators, associations, etc.). Furthermore, the
idea is to simplify the search for all this information scattered around the internet, and
there is an opportunity for IBNET to play that role.
IBNET is already a data aggregator, and it would become more relevant if it included more
data that could be useful to characterize and improve the water sector.
3.3.2. Annual reports and profiles

One of the most interesting current features of IBNET is the possibility to use aggregated
data by region or country. Several menu options and internal filters allow the user to access
this aggregated information.
However, and as pointed out in the Diaz report (Diaz, 2019), some of those aggregated
figures might be misleading. The report used the heatmap option (shown in Figure 46) to
point out that only a few utilities had been used to determine the aggregated values
assigned to Russia (5 utilities serving 2.5 million inhabitants) and the United States (one
utility serving 311,000 inhabitants) .
Figure 46. Heatmap for staff wawstewater/000 wastewater connections in IBNET (Diaz, 2019)

While the discerning user would have no trouble finding how the aggregate values had
been determined, and there is little that can be done to correct this (IBNET can only
calculate aggregated values using data stored in the system), this example raises a few
considerations:
§ Aggregated figures are useful and a powerful way to communicate information

§ Non-curated information, generated automatically, can be misleading and may
represent a reputational risk
There is little that can be done under the current IBNET model to increase the
representativeness of the aggregated figures, as data submission to IBNET is fundamentally
a bottom-up voluntary process and it is difficult to complete the available information on
some countries17.
This feature was included in IBNET following user demand, and despite a good technical
implementation, the underlying data cannot properly fulfill the needs of users. This is a
consequence of IBNET’s original design, intended to facilitate the comparison of utilities
and trends within a (generally) small sample of utilities.
However, if there is a product that an average user would expect from a World Bank
database, it would probably be the aggregation of figures by country. The two editions of
the IBNET Blue Book (Danilenko et al., 2014; van den Berg & Danilenko, 2010) addressed
this by including country data tables (see Figure 47).
In the country data tables, the information has been curated, and the authors made sure
to include the IBNET sourced data information that was used to complete the table.
These country data tables could be completed with graphs and further analysis.
17
Despite the fact that water services are public, and the key information on those services should be publicly
available, the reality is that in some countries or regions it is very difficult to find public utility data. This is
especially true (although not exclusive) of services privately operated in markets without a formal regulatory
authority.

Figure 47. Country data table for Australia. (Danilenko et al., 2014)
A good example of this notion can be found in the IWA Water Statistics (International Water
Association, 2020). Formerly a paper publication issued every 2 years, it is now a small
online database that provides aggregated national and utility figures collected every 2
years. Data are curated before publication, can be queried by country or region, and a set
of explanatory notes explains on the origin of each dataset (see Figure 48).

Figure 48. Water supply abstraction by source and country (International Water Association, 2020)
3.3.3. IBNET Gold Standard

The publication of annual reports can significantly support relevant stakeholders in their
policy making processes. In that case, most of the benefits will come from comparing data
between different regions and countries, as this will provide target values for
improvement. However, such a comparison is more than likely to be misleading. The
aggregated country value will be influenced by number of utilities, the nature of those
utilities, the quality of data, how homogeneous that data quality is, etc.
In order for these geographically based references to be useful for policy making purposes,
the reference target needs to be adequate for each particular case. While grouping data by
country or region is perfectly logical, other factors such as utility size, public/private
operation, topography, climate, urbanity, etc. may have a very significant influence in the
comparability of results.

The IBNET Gold Standard would be the first major conceptual change to the IBNET product
since inception. The Gold Standard would be more a target setting and aspirational tool,
rather than a factual set of data. Instead of displaying a set of real data from a utility or
group of utilities, an aspirational goal would be created depending on the characteristics of
the input utility.
The IBNET Gold Standard would be the first major conceptual

change to the IBNET product since inception. The Gold
Standard would be more a target setting and aspirational
tool, rather than a factual set of data.
The elaboration of this Gold Standard would represent, by nature, an arbitrary and biased
goal. Depending on a set of characteristics of an input utility (e.g. size, geographic location,
etc.) the system would present target values representing the adequate Gold Standard for
utilities in that group.
Setting a single target is both questionable and very powerful in terms of creating change.
This, for instance, is part of the philosophy of AquaRating, where a “perfect” utility would
obtain a rating of 10018. Interestingly, although this idea seemed very controversial while
AquaRating was being developed, it has not received much attention once the system has
been put into practice.
The main conceptual difference between the Gold Standard proposal and a system like
AquaRating, would be that in the Gold Standard the targets for each utility group would be
established taking into account their characteristics, while in AquaRating, the 100-value
target is the same for all utilities.
The Gold Standard represents a significant change to the IBNET philosophy. A deviation
from the hard-cold facts into a new territory, where IBNET would state what is an optimum
level of performance. In fact, the Gold Standard would be as much a policy tool as a
technical tool, and the criteria used to develop it would need to clearly match the strategic
objectives laid out in the IBNET strategic plan19.
18
As a consequence, the AquaRating team had to, at the development stage, consider what the ultimate
aspirational target would be for all metrics in the system (and also do it regarding data quality).
19
A very illustrative example of this can also be found in AquaRating. During the development stage, it was
necessary to determine the different weights used to calculate the overall rating (i.e. how important was “service
quality” vs. “corporate governance”). In the end, the most decisive factors were IDB’s objectives for the tool
and how it aligned with their strategy.

Technical considerations
From a technical point of view, a first-of-its-kind product like the Gold Standard presents a
significant number of challenges.
On one hand, performance is greatly influenced by context. A utility in an arid region,

serving a semi-rural population, using mostly groundwater and with a complicated
topography cannot be compared to a utility with unlimited access to surface water,
delivered by gravity in a flat area. In this case, even if they belong to the same region or
country and are similar in size, it would be complicated to set the same Gold Standard for
both.
The search for the perfect reference value is a lost cause. It is a question with many
answers, and none of them is the right one. Any value will be questionable and there will
be arguments for and against. Any standard will be, to a certain extent, arbitrary and there
will never be certainty for any particular value.
For this reason, it is important to consider the Gold Standard a strategic tool and the
reference value needs to be determined with a sound methodology from the technical
point of view, but coherent with the strategy.
From a technical point of view, the standard values should probably be a result of the
extensive data already present in IBNET. Processing those data target values for key
performance dimensions could be established. However, under certain circumstances, the
target values may be established without a real-world reference, keeping in mind that the
Gold Standard is an aspirational (and not necessarily real) target.
in order to avoid constant changes in the target values, a manual review process should be
undertaken periodically (e.g. 3 or 5 years) to adjust the new values for the Gold Standard.
From a strategic point of view, even the simplest decision can have consequences on the
impact of the tool. A good example may be choosing an average value for the sector in a
region/country (can be influenced by the top performers), a median value or simply a
percentile. In other words the decision could be phrased as: should the Gold Standard be
an unattainable value (perfect performance) or a “good enough” value? (reaching it would
mean matching a top of the class performance).
Development roadmap
The development of a new tool that has no current equivalent is a complex endeavour. If
the World Bank is to set a Gold Standard for water and sanitations services, the science
behind the tool needs to be solid. Additionally, the development path is likely to include
setbacks and fully planning it in advance may not be possible.

Figure 49 shows a draft development roadmap for the IBNET Gold Standard.
1. IBNET Strategic
plan 2. Establish key
parameters for the
• Strategic objectives
Gold Standard
• Targets
4. Specify
performance target 3. Determine
for each clustering criteria
target/cluster
Figure 49. IBNET Gold Standard development roadmap
1. IBNET Strategic Plan. The Gold Standard will need to be aligned with the IBNET and
World Bank strategies. As a change promoting tool, determining the key objectives
of the tool is a fundamental first step.
2. Establish the key performance dimensions. Another key step is the choice of the
key performance dimensions (or parameters to be measured) for the standard. This
decision will determine the direction of change created by the tool. For instance, if
coverage, water loss and energy efficiency were the vectors chosen by the Golden
Standard, utilities would be compelled to try to reach the targets for those
parameters.
3. Determine the clustering criteria. With the key parameters to be included in the
standard clear, a much more technical phase in the development of the tool starts.
By analysing the current IBNET data, the context variables with the greatest
correlation with those parameters can be found.
Once those variables have been found, clusters can be considered. The final choice
of clusters (e.g. by size, region, etc) will have to take into account once again
strategic considerations (for instance, clustering by country may be more

interesting from a policy making point of view, even if the geographic variable is not
the one with the strongest correlation).
4. Establishing the reference values. Once the key parameters and the clusters have
been established, a finite number of combinations will exist for utilities to compare
against. For each performance dimension (e.g. parameter, metric or indicator) and
cluster, a reference value or level will have to be produced, creating a matrix of all
possible values (see Figure 50). This process should be supported by the use of
historic IBNET data when possible, or other data sources.
Clusters
Performance dimesions
Reference value for the

utility corresponding to the
selected performance
dimension & cluster
Figure 50. Gold Standard matrix. Possible combinations of performance dimensions and clusters
(reference values)
Gold Standard incentives
Much of the potential of the Gold Standard should derive from its simplicity. A single target
for a certain performance dimension sends a very strong message. For this reason, the
clustering criteria (and therefore the number of clusters) should be limited, finding a
balance between a better fit for the utilities (more cluster criteria) and too many clusters.

In order to promote its use, the tool could benefit from a performance improvement
feature, that would allow utilities to access technical assistance and resources (programs,
funds, loans, etc.) to improve their performance.
In that case, IBNET could become a benchmark, a tool to determine the baseline and the
progress of water and sanitation services as a result of initiatives supported or funded by
the Bank.
New features in the IBNET 2.0 portal

The new features proposed for IBNET 2.0 need to be in accordance with the conceptual
design of the system, and therefore the IBNET strategic plan. The ability to adequately
query and visualize data is in direct relationship with how effective the information may be
to reach certain goals.
For this reason, redesigning the IBNET portal, with clear focus on the interface to provide
a valuable user experience, becomes a fundamental step for a successful IBNET 2.0.
The current IBNET portal has a significant number of features (as described in section 1.1)
and users can access the information in many different ways. However, the user interface
is not as intuitive as it could be, and the user experience could be improved.
This is a direct result of a lack of a clear strategy for IBNET on what the product is, who is
the target audience and what is it is its final purpose. Diaz referred to this as IBNET lacking
service design (Diaz, 2019).
Many of the current IBNET features are useful, make sense and have been implemented
adequately. However, the IBNET database as a whole may have an overwhelming effect on
the user, that can reach the same tool through different menu links, find queries that return
no results or simply find aggregated results that make no sense.
For instance, the IBNET database home page presents 15 menu options. Some of them are
quite confusing (there are two different options named “country reports” and “country
report” -sic. An additional one is named “country profile”). Some of them lead to the same
page although having different names (“region report” is actually a sub-set of “report
wizard”).
Some interesting concepts like the “utility report” -which is actually a form allowing users
to query the entire database per utility- do not show any results, while the “one-click
benchmarking” option will. This may have a perfect database explanation, but a user trying
to find information on a certain utility using one of the options may think IBNET contains
no data, and another user will find data for several years (see Figure 51).

The IBNET 2.0 portal should be designed bottom-up, understanding the strategic priorities,
the needs of the different stakeholder constituencies, allowing both simple access to data,
but also full access to raw data and taking the user experience into account.
Figure 51. Utility report and one click report for EPAL (Lisbon, Portugal) utility (IBNET website,
2020)
The IBNET 2.0 portal should be designed bottom-up,

understanding the strategic priorities, the needs of the
different stakeholder constituencies, allowing both simple
access to data, but also full access to raw data and taking the
user experience into account.
As an example, a potential list of features in IBNET 2.0 is included:

1. Expanded database engine (Global Water Knowledge Database) to accommodate
§ Data, metrics and indicators from urban water services, but without
being limited to them.
§ Original definitions from those indicators / metrics (how they have
been obtained).

§ Data quality grading on the source of the information and its
reliability.
§ Global information about key water indicators even in countries
where data is not submitted (e.g. water coverage).
2. Updated IBNET Benchmarking database
o Improved data experience

§ The database should include specific data collected ad-hoc for
benchmarking and selected data from 1) adapted to traditional
IBNET definitions to allow for comparisons.
§ Weak data should be moved to the Global Water Knowledge
Database.
§ Streamlined processes to avoid queries resulting in no data (e.g. if
activating a certain filter will return no data, the option should not
be available).
§ Possibility to access original raw data and definitions (seamless link
to the Global Water Knowledge Database).
§ Data quality information integrated in the database (with filtering
capabilities).
§ Use of Big Data tools to obtain trends and data correlation that may
be useful.
§ Use of Data Mining tools to obtain additional information on the
sector.
o Update of the current reporting and filtering capabilities of IBNET

§ Possibility to cluster data (by size, type of utility, region, etc).
§ Adaptation of the current country reports option to accommodate
different user defined clusters.
§ Curated static country reports (very similar to the current ones but
consolidated per year and with additional information).
§ Analysis tools for a utility (uploading a value of an indicator, quick
report on how it compares within a cluster).
3. Consolidation of the tariff database

§ Maintain the effort to consolidate it as the leading global tariff
database.
§ Link tariff database to the benchmarking database (ability to link
tariffs to performance).

4. Redesigned website and brand focusing on the user experience
§ Seamless integration of the different IBNET products.
§ Different web paths by profile (utility, policy maker, regulator, etc.).
§ Two level website (visiting user / experienced data hungry user).
§ New brand manual developed for the IBNET brand to reinforce the
new IBNET 2.0 initiative and the change of scope.
§ Streamlined new web design following the brand manual guidelines.
5. Periodic publications to support the IBNET brand and concept

§ Annual intelligence reports on the sector. Including the curated
annual country reports, a global water knowledge report could be
issued with additional analysis and levels for the Gold Standard. This
document would become an annual reference, position the product
as a key element in the industry and provide much greater visibility
inside and outside the bank20.
Governance framework and operation

Upon reviewing the current IBNET operation, one of the most surprising deficits is the
absence of a visible governance structure. The Diaz report (Diaz, 2019) pointed out that
“IBNET lacks internal and external institutional and governance structure. It has never
established an internal advisory board and has not considered a participatory approach for
IBNET participants”.
The report advocated for the creation of an institutional structure to make it easier to
communicate and engage with the Bank’s regional and thematic problem.
Additionally, at least two new governance committees should be created:
Steering committee: A committee to provide oversight and control of the IBNET unit. The
committee could include external members and would meet at least once a year to ensure
that IBNET 2.0 is meeting the objectives established in its strategic plan, make the
necessary corrections and ensure that IBNET has the necessary resources to continue its
operation.
20
Despite the fact that data may reach IBNET with a two years delay, IBNET should publish annual figures.
This would set IBNET apart from the IWA effort (a voluntary efforts by IWA members) and establish the
report as the reference publication to obtain updated global data on the urban water sector.

Technical committee: Until now all technical decisions on IBNET have been made internally
with external inputs. IBNET could benefit from a more transparent and organized technical
body, in charge of updating the system and considering any technical changes.
Implementation roadmap
If IBNET 2.0 is to succeed, a significant evolution of the program is needed, building on the
success of 25 years of operation. The implementation project should be carefully managed
with each step based on the results of the previous one to guarantee coherence and
consistency to the project. The recommended implementation stages for the project are
shown in Figure 52. Although they are shown sequentially, some of them may be developed
in parallel.
1. Appoint a core team to

2. Develop the IBNET 2.0 3. Determine IBNET 2.0 4. Develop Golden
coordinate the
Strategic Plan scope Standard principles
development of IBNET 2.0
8. Design new IBNET 7. Complete

6. Design, develop and 5. Establish data quality
brand and create brand benchmarking database
migrate to new database framework
manual data 2016-2020
12. Establish a
9. Design and develop 11. Develop a review
Governance structure for
online platform front-end 10. Design annual IBNET calendar to maintain the
IBNET with technical and
features and data publication tool and periodic products
strategic committees to
submission system up-to-date
oversee the tool
Figure 52. IBNET 2.0 implementation roadmap
3.6.1. Appointment of a core team for IBNET 2.0

The development of IBNET 2.0 cannot be undertaken with a continuity mindset. It will
require some outside the box thinking while maintaining the essence of IBNET. A reduced
core team should oversee the whole project. The team should include the key individuals
that built IBNET but should also others to provide a fresh point of view to challenge the
status quo, either from the Bank or even from outside. Initially, this core team would act
as a de-facto steering committee and could become the seed for this committee at the end
of the roadmap.

3.6.2. Development of an IBNET strategic plan
IBNET has been somehow adrift in the recent past. Regardless of the reasons for this lack
of clear direction, the fact is that the benchmarking database has not been properly
updated with new data and as a result the sector has lost interest in the tool. However,
projects largely based on the IBNET concept and with many similarities (like DANUBIS) have
flourished in the same period, suggesting that IBNET can enjoy a renewed success with
clear guidance and support from the World Bank.
However, changes to the current IBNET product cannot take place without a clear strategic
path, aligned with the Bank’s own strategy on water. The development of a new strategic
plan for IBNET will lay out the principles that need to guide the development of IBNET and
establish the targets that will determine its success along the road.
IBNET needs to be considered as a program with clear strategic goals for the medium and
long term. The resulting plan, with full support from the Bank, should become the reference
document to guide the next steps for IBNET 2.0.
3.6.3. Determine IBNET 2.0 scope

The scope of IBNET 2.0 will be a direct consequence of the strategy established previously.
The target audience and the goals will condition the kind of data that needs to be collected
(for all databases), the data sources and the different analysis instruments that need to be
developed.
This part of the implementation will need to consider the use of data mining techniques
and big data analysis tools within IBNET.
3.6.4. Develop Golden Standard principles

If the Golden Standard is to be developed, the technical details of the tool will also need to
reflect the strategy. The team will need to establish the different metrics and clusters, and
also the methodology to obtain the different values for the golden standard matrix
described in Figure 50.
3.6.5. Establish data quality framework

Once the details of the data to be hosted in the different databases are clear, the data
quality framework will need to be established. Taking into consideration the existing data
quality grading systems, the optimum solution for the IBNET ecosystem will need to be
designed.

3.6.6. Design, develop and migrate to new database
With the all the data design parameters clear, the existing database structure will need to
be reviewed and amended as necessary to host all the new functionality and data sources,
while maintaining compatibility with existing data and enabling the full integration of the
tariffs database.
Once the database architecture is clear, the database will need to be developed and all
existing data migrated.
The migrated data should be assigned data quality grading following pre-stablished criteria.
3.6.7. Complete benchmarking database data 2016-2020

With the new database architecture, the missing data from the 2016-2020 period in the
benchmarking database should be entered into the system. This is especially true for those
utilities with a significant number of years of performance data uploaded to IBNET.
The new data should already be incorporated with its data quality grading included.
3.6.8. Design new IBNET brand and create brand manual

The conceptual and functional changes in the IBNET ecosystem should be reflected in a
new strong, modern and dynamic brand that constitutes a good vehicle to change the
perception about IBNET, its mission, its growth beyond benchmarking and its presence in
the sector. The name “IBNET” should probably be maintained, but a new tagline could be
developed to convey the evolution of the program.
A brand manual should be developed to include the website design, the periodic
publications and communications material. A roll-out information campaign should be
considered.
3.6.9. Design and develop the online platform front-end features and data
submission system
The new IBNET portal should be designed, providing a new front-end to the new database
backoffice. Special care should be placed on the functional design of the website, focusing
on the user experience.

3.6.10. Design annual IBNET publication
The contents and layout of the annual IBNET publication should be determined, containing
country profiles, including Gold Standard principles, tariff information and sector trends
obtained from IBNET data.
The production details of this publication should also be established, including the editorial
team and the necessary resources.
3.6.11. Develop a review calendar

A review calendar for all the IBNET system elements should be developed. Including data
definitions, tool configuration, platform reviews and periodic publications.
The calendar should, for instance, specify how often the IBNET indicators need to be
reviewed in the medium term and who is to review them.
3.6.12. Establish a governance structure

Finally, a proper governance structure should be put in place. With at least one steering
committee to provide oversight and guidance for the IBNET unit, and a technical committee
to provide input and periodic revision to the different components of the system.
Financial requirements
Estimating the financial requirements to develop IBNET 2.0 at the current stage cannot be
a deterministic exercise. The suggestion to start with a strategic plan will trigger all later
actions and their associated budgets. As a matter of fact, the easiest financial requirements
to determine are those associated with developing the IBNET strategic plan, and even then,
they will depend on the depth of the plan and the consultation outreach to develop it.
This chapter intends to provide some estimated figures to achieve an understanding of
possible costs, but in all cases, all actions resulting from the strategy for IBNET 2.0 should
be budgeted independently once they have been properly outlined.
In-house personnel resources from the Bank are expressed in person-months required
from the staff.

3.7.1. IBNET Strategic plan
The development of a strategic plan is the first step for all options in order to develop IBNET
2.0.
The appropriate development of a strategic plan will require the contribution of at least a
reduced (and hierarchically relevant) group of Bank staff, coordinated by a project leader.
The combined time from the team is estimated in 3 months.
The remaining costs have been estimated from the contribution of a strategy facilitation
process expert, 30 days @ US$800 per day)
ITEM ONE-TIME ANNUAL COSTS

COSTS
IBNET Strategic Plan • 3 person-months – -
WB Staff
• US$24,000
3.7.2. Completing data gaps and resuming data collection

Resuming data collection would imply the participation of external consultants that would
contribute to recover some of the missing data from the time series (up to 4 years). This
effort should be limited to the low-hanging fruit, focusing on efficiency and the best quality
data that can be incorporated, as this is a one-time effort that will need to be coordinated
with resuming the annual collection of data.
Estimated costs are for 600-800 WSS expert days (US$800/day) to collect and curate data,
depending on the required depth of data collection. National or regional associations may
fulfil these roles as they are in closer contact with the data.
The annual costs once data collection has been resumed are consistent with the estimated
costs in the Castalia report and include 600 WSS expert days (US$800/day) and a significant
contribution of 18 months from WB staff.
These costs are estimated operating a business-as-usual version of IBNET.
Item One-time costs Annual costs

Completing data gaps and resuming data collection • 6 person-months – • 18 person-months –
WB Staff WB Staff
• US$480,000- US$480,000-
US$640,000 US$640,000
3.7.3. IBNET Gold Standard

Development of a new conceptual tool like the IBNET Gold Standard is an intellectual and
strategic exercise that can be costly both in time and resources. One of the fundamental

issues will be to obtain full support from the senior management at the Bank and also
ensure that all stakeholders embrace the tool in a positive way.
Ideally, the product should be developed within a team including one or several senior
specialists from the Bank, as well as one or two external WSS Performance Assessment
Experts.
Costs have been estimated taking into account 90 days of WSS Performance Assessment
Experts @ US$1000/day, and 3-6 months/person WB staff depending on the number of
specialists in the team.

Development of the IBNET Gold Standard • US$ 90,000 _
• 3-6 months/person
WB staff
3.7.4. Upgrade of the current IT system

The costs of upgrading the current web-based IT system will depend on the desired
functionality:
a. Upgrade of current GUI, with same functionality

An upgrade of the current GUI would be relatively simple from a developer’s
perspective, as the current operating product can be used to define the
project.
The estimated costs include 15 days of a consultant to conceptualize a
functional design of the platform and manage the project, and the
development costs of such project.
b. Data quality management

The most challenging part of including a data quality management system
in the IBNET web platform derives from the design stage. Once the
constraints are clear (how to grade data quality, how to apply it to different
kinds of data, how to solve the data quality of existing data, etc.)
The estimated costs include 7 days of a consultant to write the technical
specifications and manage the project, and the development costs of such
project
c. Expansion as a knowledge base product / Gold Standard

Option c is inclusive of options a and b, as an expansion of the database and
the inclusion of the gold standard would require a complete redesign of the
GUI.

The estimated costs include 40 days of a consultant to write the technical
specifications required, conceptualize a functional design for the platform
and manage the project, and the development costs of the project itself.

a. Upgrade of current GUI, with same functionality • US$ 70,000 _
b. Data quality management • US$ 32,500 _
c. Expansion as a knowledge base product / Gold Standard • US$230,000 _
3.7.5. IBNET concept change and repositioning

Repositioning the IBNET program effectively will require a brand evolution and a
communication campaign. The development of electronic materials would be included in
the brand evolution. This campaign can be targeted to key stakeholders and should follow
any changes in the web platform.

IBNET brand evolution • US$ 10,000 _
Communication campaign • US$ 7,500
3.7.6. Annual report

The production of an annual report will consist of two basic activities:
- Data compilation and writing of the report. This activity will rely mostly on
WB staff, given the strategic nature of the report and the impact the
publication may have. 3 person-months are estimated to create the report
from beginning to end (including supervision of the production stages).
- Editing, layout and proofing of the report. Some of the low-impact editorial
contributions to the report can be outsourced (pictures, graphs, non-
sensitive text and description). Additionally, the report will need to be
designed and produced by a graphic designer.

Data compilation and writing • 3 person-months –
WB Staff
Report design, editing, layout • US$ 5,000
• 12,000 US$

3.7.7. External operation by a third party
Externalizing the full operation of IBNET to a third party (maintaining WB oversight and
overall management) is a complex operation that will require a reputable institution,
probably of an academic or non-profit nature.
The associated costs of an external operation will largely depend on the final options
selected for IBNET 2.0 and the cost structure of the receiving institution. However, it is
quite likely that such an institution would have to outsource a significant part of the data
handling operation to consultants and an IT company.
The time resources to be allocated by the Bank will strongly depend on the final governance
structure proposed and level of oversight of the operations.

EXTERNAL OPERATION BY A THIRD PARTY
Annual data • US$ 700,000
collection
Software • US$ 50,000
operation
and
maintenance
Data analysis • US$ 180,000
and
development
of
knowledge
product (3
data
analysts)
Annual • US$ 40,000
report
• US$970,000
• 6 person-months
WB staff

4. CONCLUSIONS
4.1.1. IBNET is a unique tool and occupies a significant space in the urban water
space
IBNET has been for nearly 25 years the largest available source for information on urban
water data. In this time, several regional initiatives, regulator websites or international
projects have occupied portions of IBNET space. Some of them have faded and some of
them are not relevant enough for they cover a small geographic region. None of them have
ever played the role that IBNET plays and it is not likely they will in the future.
As of today, anyone in the water sector searching for performance data of urban water
services will likely search for it in IBNET at some stage. This includes policymakers,
consultants, academics, NGOs, manufacturers, software developers, WSS specialists, etc.
This exemplifies the possibilities that even today IBNET has to influence the urban water
sector.
4.1.2. IBNET has no real competitors. IBNET has no replacement.

There are no real threats to IBNET in the market. All existing performance databases were
created with different objectives, scopes and functionalities in mind. AquaRating is the
closest IBNET has to a competitor, and it is a completely different product (that was shaped
knowing about the existence of IBNET and with a clear differentiation from it in mind).
However, nothing out there could replace IBNET if it ceased to exist. If IBNET was to
disappear, the water sector at large would lose its main source of global information on
urban water services (regardless of how incomplete or improvable it might be). Nothing
and no one would occupy IBNET’s space.
4.1.3. Urban water data is necessary

There is a clear need for urban water data. The Bank states it in a very clear way in its
website: “the world needs a fundamental shift in how it understands, values and manages
water. Understanding water means making evidence-based decisions about water using
strengthened water data” (The World Bank, 2020).
4.1.4. IBNET needs to manage expectations better

Data quality as a problem in IBNET has been at the core of every analysis carried out on
the tool. However, IBNET cannot pretend to solve the data quality problems in the urban

water utilities around the world. IBNET can provide aggregated data by country, region,
etc., but for this information to be meaningful a significant amount of data points is
needed.
IBNET cannot be perfect, and there is room for technical improvement in the current’s
tool design, including changes to how it works with data quality. However, IBNET needs to
manage better its user’s expectations and its communications, design and scope should
address these issues.
4.1.5. IBNET needs a Strategic Plan

IBNET 2.0 cannot be a technical project, a redesign of the system, a rebranding initiative
or an effort that can simply be outsourced. IBNET’s survival requires the program to be
meaningful, useful and fully aligned with The World Bank’s strategy on water and
sanitation.
Shaping IBNET 2.0 requires a strong implication from the Bank’s top management and
should materialize through a new strategic plan for the program. The mission, vision and
objectives of IBNET, and their contribution to the big picture, should be the initial step of
any efforts leading to a new IBNET.
4.1.6. It is urgent to resume data collection

IBNET data have not been updated at its regular levels since 2016. The outside world may
perceive that the system may be soon (or is already) abandoned. Since IBNET’s value lies
mostly in its data, any options for continuity should be based on an initial effort of data
collection to complete the gap in the missing years.
4.1.7. IBNET is a key tool for policy making

IBNET is the only global tool dealing with urban water data. While policy making often
relies on aggregated data, successful actions require the detail of utility level information.
IBNET provides both.
Already used extensively for policy analysis, IBNET needs to leave behind its perception of
a benchmarking network, dominated by the anecdotal comparison of performance of
utilities21 and become a key policy making tool, with the most reliable global data in the
sector. IBNET should allow to think globally and act locally.
21
Anecdotal when considered from the greater perspective of policy changes.

4.1.8. IBNET needs repositioning
25 years have created a clear perception in the sector about what IBNET is and what it is
useful for. Increasing IBNET’s impact and sustainability requires that the program plays a
more relevant role in improving water services for everyone. IBNET needs to be perceived
as the source of global and reliable data for urban water. This concept goes well beyond
benchmarking, and although benchmarking will always be at the core of IBNET, these
other concepts need to be accommodated within IBNET as well, to achieve a greater
impact.
4.1.9. IBNET needs to evolve

IBNET should become more relevant by better addressing the Bank’s strategy and the
current needs of the sector. This evolution may take place by adding new metrics on
some of the key topics that need attention (e.g. safely managed water and sanitation
services, resilience, sustainable infrastructure, etc.).
The evolution can also lead to IBNET acting as a standard setting tool. The Gold Standard
can be developed using the current extensive database and become a bar that sets the
level for water and sanitation services everywhere, adapted to the local needs and
possibilities.

5. REFERENCES
ADERASA. (2018). Informe Anual 2018. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004
Alegre, H., Baptista, J. M., Cabrera, E., Cubillo, F., Duarte, P., Hirner, W., Merkel, W., &
Parena, R. (2016). Performance Indicators for Water Supply Services: Third Edition.
Water Intelligence Online. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780406336
AquaRating. (2019). What is AquaRating?
Asian Development Bank. (2007). Databook of Southeast Asian Water Utilities 2005 (Issue
November).
Baland, J.-M. B., Bourguignon, F., Platteau, J.-P., & Verdier, T. (Eds.). (2020). The Handbook
of Economic Development and Institutions. Princenton University Press.
Baptista, J. M. (2016). The Lisbon Charter: Guiding the public policy and regulation of
drinking water supply, sanitation and wastewater management services. Regional
Seminar: Asian Water Academy, Thailand Water Resources Association (International
Water Association).
Cabrera, E., & Cabrera Jr., E. (2016). Regulation of Urban Water Services. An Overview (E.
Cabrera & E. Cabrera Jr. (Eds.); 1st ed.). IWA Publishing.
Cabrera, E., Dane, P., Haskins, S., & Theuretzbacher-Fritz, H. (2011). Benchmarking Water
Services. Water Intelligence Online. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780400877
Camp, R. C. (1989). Benchmarking: The search for industry best practices that lead to
superior performance. Quality Progress. https://doi.org/10.5860/choice.27-2173
Castalia. (2012a). IBNET Development and Marketing Strategy Final Draft Report to World
Bank.
Castalia. (2012b). IBNET Market Analysis Results Report.
Danilenko, A., van den Berg, C., Macheve, B., & Moffitt, L. J. (2014). The IBNET Water Supply
and Sanitation Blue Book 2014: The International Benchmarking Network for Water
and Sanitation Utilities Databook. In The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Blue Book
2014: The International Benchmarking Network for Water and Sanitation Utilities
Databook. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0276-8
Danube Water Program. (2019). About Danube Water Program.
Danubis water platform. (2019). Danubis Data Collection and Management Platform.
Diaz, C. (2019). IBNET. ASSESSMENT OF OPTIONS FOR ITS CONTINUATION 2019 (Issue 202).
DiscoverWater. (2020). DiscoverWater.
EBC. (2018). Learning from International Best Practices.

ERSAR. (2018a). Relatório anual dos serviços de águas e resíduos em Portugal - 2018. Anexo
I -Benchmarking (Vol. 1).
ERSAR. (2018b). Relatório anual dos Serviços de Águas e Resíduos em Portugal / 2018 -
Caraterização do setor de águas e resíduos (Vol. 1).
ERSAR. (2020). Publicações: Relatorio Anual do setor.
Google. (2020a). Google Analytics.
Google. (2020b). Google Scholar.
Google. (2020c). Google Trends.
Helland, B., & Adamsson, J. (1998). Performance indicators: Benchmarking between six
cities in Scandinavia. Aqua. https://doi.org/10.2166/aqua.1998.34
IBNET website. (2020). https://www.ib-net.org/
International Water Association. (2020). IWA Water Statistics.
Kingdom, W., Knapp, J. W., LaChance, P., & Olstein, M. (1996). Performance benchmarking
for water utilities (J. W. Knapp, W. Kingdom, P. LaChance, & M. Olstein (Eds.)) [Book].
AWWA Research Foundation.
Krause, M., Cabrera Jr., E., Cubillo, F., Diaz, C., & Ducci, J. (2018). AquaRating (Matthias
Krause, E. Cabrera Jr., F. Cubillo, C. Díaz, & J. Ducci (Eds.); 2018 Editi). IWA Publishing.
Macroconsulting. (2013). IBNET Toolkit User Manual.
Marques, R. C., & Simões, P. (2008). Does the sunshine regulatory approach work?.
Governance and regulation model of the urban waste services in Portugal. Resources,
Conservation and Recycling, 52(8–9), 1040–1049.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.04.002
McIntosh, A. C., & Yñiguez, C. E. (1997). Second water utilities data book : Asian and Pacific
region (A. C. McIntosh, C. E. Yñiguez, & Asian Development Bank (Eds.)) [Book]. Asian
Development Bank.
OECD.Stats. (2018). Generation and discharge of wastewater. Water Data.
OECD. (2020). Wastewater treatment (indicator). https://doi.org/10.1787/ef27a39d-en
Office of Water Services. (1998). July return reporting requirements and definitions manual.
PWWA. (2020a). Pacific Water and Wastewater Association.
PWWA. (2020b). Search PWWA Database.
SEAWUN. (2007). Regional Public Goods: Southeast Asian Water Utilities Network
(SEAWUN) Initiative.
Shleifer, A. (1985). A Theory of Yardstick Competition. The RAND Journal of Economics.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2555560
SIASAR. (2020). SIASAR DATA website. http://data.siasar.org/
SISS. (2017). Informe de Gestión del Sector Sanitario. In Superintendencia de Servicios

Sanitarios.
SPINUTECH. (2020). 7 website analytics that matter most.

https://www.spinutech.com/digital-marketing/analytics/analysis/7-website-
analytics-that-matter-most/
SUNASS. (2019). Benchmarking Regulatorio 2019.
The World Bank. (1999). Benchmarking Water and Sanitation Utilities: Start-Up Toolkit. The
World Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/215091468140667452/pdf/441670WP
0BOX321NE01010200801PUBLIC1.pdf
The World Bank. (2013). Implementation completion and results report (IBRD-7475) on a
loan in the amount of us$50.0 million to the administracion de las Obras Sanitarias del
Estado (national water supply and sanitation company OSE) with the guarantee of the
oriental republic of .
The World Bank. (2020). Water overview - The World Bank website.
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/water/overview
van den Berg, C., & Danilenko, A. (2010). The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation
Performance Blue Book. In The IBNET Water Supply and Sanitation Performance Blue
Book. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-0-8213-8582-1
World Bank Water Global Practice. (2020). Terms of Reference for Position Paper on the
Future of IBNET.
Yepes, G., & Dianderas, A. (1996). Indicators 2nd Edition. The World Bank.
http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/186781468740160020/pdf/multi-
page.pdf

ANNEXES
a. Historical context
The mid 90s were a period of enormous activity in the water sector around the
development of performance measures (indicators). In 1989 and following the privatization
of water services in the UK, the newly established regulatory body (the Office of Water
Services) was created to provide the necessary warranties in a natural monopoly that had
become fully privately operated. The “yardstick competition” became the tool of choice for
the newly established regulator, a concept developed just a few years earlier (Shleifer,
1985). The sector quickly gained an interest in measuring the performance of water
services with indicators, and also comparing them.
The multilateral development banks were the first ones to see the potential in performance
assessment by means of indicators and there are documented initiatives by both The World
Bank and the Asian Development Bank (ADB) around 1993.
ADB published its Water Utilities Data Book for the Asian and Pacific Region in November
1993, with information from 38 utilities in 23 countries. In 1996, the second edition of the
data book was published (McIntosh & Yñiguez, 1997) with data from 50 utilities in 30
countries collected in 1995.
In parallel, The World Bank was following a very similar path. In April 1993, a first edition
of Operational Indicators for water and wastewater services was published, followed in
1994 by publications on Financial Indicators and Overview of Tariff Rates and Structures.
All this information was included and updated in the second edition of Water &
Wastewater Utilities Indicators (Yepes & Dianderas, 1996). This publication is considered
to be the starting point of IBNET, although as it has been mentioned, data were being
collected by the Bank as early as 1993.
Even from these early efforts, the focus of these publications was on the comparison of
performance of different utilities (see ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.).

Figure 53. Unaccounted for water. (Yepes & Dianderas, 1996)
The rest of the water industry began to show interest in performance assessment and the
comparison of results, and the AWWA Research Foundation published the same year the
first reference to provide a conceptual framework for benchmarking in the water sector
(Kingdom et al., 1996).
This manual, established a clear difference between the comparison of metrics (they called
it “metric benchmarking”) and the adaptation of best practices and processes, as described
by Robert C. (Camp, 1989) that was coined in the manual as “process benchmarking”. The
inclusion of these two very different techniques still generates confusion today, and
despite the efforts of IWA in trying to provide a clear terminology (Cabrera et al., 2011),
the term Benchmarking is often used interchangeably to describe both22.
22
IBNET is clearly a “metric benchmarking” initiative, based on the comparison of performance metrics. In
IWA terminology, IBNET would be a “comparative performance assessment” initiative.

The manual described how, even back then, some utilities were already working together
to try to improve performance in self-promoted benchmarking efforts (i.e. not led by a
multilateral development bank). Soon recurring, annual-based, benchmarking efforts by
utilities started to appear in the sector, like the benchmarking of the 6 cities group in
Scandinavia (Helland & Adamsson, 1998).
In 1997, with the increasing interest from utilities, the International Water Association
started its efforts to develop a standardized set of indicators that could be used for water
supply services. These efforts would lead to the Manual of Best Practices on Performance
Indicators for Water Supply Services (Alegre et al., 2016), with editions in 2000, 2006 and
2016, that has become the industry standard for definitions and also provides guidelines
on how to develop performance assessment frameworks.
The World Bank continued its efforts with the launching of an Excel based “electronic data
capture system”, the Benchmarking Start-up Toolkit (The World Bank, 1999). The program
(see ¡Error! No se encuentra el origen de la referencia.) provided a clear set of definitions,
a standardised collection tool, the possibility to automatically calculate the indicators and
the foundations to periodically collect urban water sector data.
In 2003, WRc was appointed by the Bank to manage the development of the Start-up Kit.
In 2004, IBNET as we know it today was launched (web based, easily accessible, public
benchmarking website).
Once launched, IBNET clearly became the main reference for urban water sector data. The
availability of data going back to 1993, the accessibility in an open website and the large
number of countries represented, helped the Bank’s dissemination efforts in turning the
site into a well-known resource for academics and practitioners.

Figure 54. The Benchmarking Water and Sanitation Utilities Start-Up Kit (The World Bank, 1999)
This historical context would not be complete without some further reference to the term
“Benchmarking” that the Bank chose to use since the Start-up kit. While perfectly
consistent with some of the (often contradictory) definitions that are present in the
literature, the IBNET program lacks a fundamental part of benchmarking (at least as
regarded by some authors).
IBNET allows to compare performance of different utilities, but the actual improvement of
the performance is not part of the IBNET concept (see Figure 55). IBNET presents the
perfect foundation to initiate such improvement but does not actively promote it.
This is a logical approach, as performance improvement very much depends on local

conditions, resources and context, needs to be locally driven, and a global initiative cannot
facilitate this phase.
However, following this logic, the term benchmarking may have limited the perception of
the IBNET value proposition. Identifying IBNET so strongly with benchmarking may have
somehow led to imply that only the utilities (the performers) would benefit from the
program, as a direct performance improvement mechanism23. However, IBNET has proven
to be useful to other stakeholders in the sector (policymakers, academics, users, NGO, etc.).
23
At a certain level, individual utility data, or their comparison, is not seen as useful as an aggregated view of
the sector. The comparison of data from several utility can be used for improvements at a local level, but it
could probably be seen as insufficient to promote policies or changes at regional, national or international
levels.

FUNCTION
METRIC PROCESS
BENCHMARKING BENCHMARKING
UTILITY
PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT PERFORMANCE IMPROVEMENT

BENCHMARKING
Figure 55. The benchmarking process (adapted). (Cabrera et al., 2011)
Figure 56. Survey email from WRc concerning the guture of the Benchmarking Start-up kit and IBNET
(March 2004)

As a matter of fact, considering how IBNET was assessed in the past, it probably failed to
manage expectations adequately.
In 2004 WRc sent a questionnaire on the future of the World Bank Benchmarking Start-up
Kit for Water and Sanitation Utilities (Figure 56). The questionnaire focused on how useful
IBNET was “for benchmarking purposes” and what sort of additional services IBNET could
provide to “support benchmarking activity in the water and sanitation sector around the
world”.
The Castalia report developed 8 years later (Castalia, 2012a) focused also on benchmarking
as a guiding concept for an extensive survey aimed at determining the value of IBNET to
different stakeholder groups. This issue is covered in detail in section The Castalia
report2.1.1 of this report.
This same issue was presented in the 2019 report by Carlos Diaz on IBNET options for
continuation (Diaz, 2019): “IBNET faces a huge positioning issue: it is recognized as a global
database only, but it was meant to be an I.B.NET, a network of supported benchmarking
initiatives. Although the international database proposition was part of the design brief,
IBNET was meant to boost the creation of a “network of international benchmarking
activities” (an I.B. NETWORK), predominantly devoted to a node structure linked to an IBNET
Central Organization”.
Additionally, Diaz stressed that Benchmarking was outdated conceptually: “There is

nothing fundamentally wrong with IBNET, but it reflects the needs of the 90’s, the
benchmarking ideas of the 90’s, and the World Bank of the 90’s. Furthermore,
benchmarking, once an innovative concept, has lost the popularity it gained during the 90’s,
and so has IBNET. Moreover, benchmarking has become an imprecise concept nowadays.”
However, it could be argued that IBNET was never “just” a benchmarking program.
Although the initiative presents the requirements of a true benchmarking network24, many
other actors are using it as a sector knowledge base, searching for information that goes
beyond the comparison of utility data. IBNET has become a standard, providing uniform
definitions in the water sector, it has been used by regulators to conform their performance
assessment systems, by all sorts of agencies and institutions to design sector reforms, by
academics for research purposes and by customers to request better water services. And
none of those uses would fall under the classical definition of benchmarking based on
comparing performance. Because IBNET is much more than just an International
Benchmarking Network.
24
Using the definition of “metric benchmarking”

This has been obvious even to those responsible for IBNET. For instance, Figure 57 shows
the “official” IBNET benefits by type of user (van den Berg & Danilenko, 2010). Many of
those benefits are not directly linked to benchmarking or comparison of data (self-
assessment, utilities participation, data to inform advocacy for the water sector, tariff
setting, evaluation of the sector, etc.).
Figure 57. IBNET benefits by type of user (van den Berg & Danilenko, 2010)

b. Benchmarking database options
The following pages describe the different options available in the benchmarking
database at the IBNET website.
Country profile
Provides the IBNET data aggregated by country. The user can choose the country and even
select individual indicators to obtain their time series for the country (see Figure 58).
Figure 58. IBNET country profile for Portugal (IBNET website, 2020)

Country report
Provides the detailed data for every utility in the country for the selected years with the
possibility to produce time series charts for each indicator.
Benchmarking report
Allows to compare the indicators from different utilities for different years (it represents a
gateway to the custom reports option).
Report wizard
Provides quick direct access to pre-set country and utility reports
Figure 59. Utility report from the report wizard (IBNET website, 2020)

Multiple utility report
Allows to generate pre-set or custom reports for multiple utilities
Utility profile
Allows the access to pre-set utility reports (same information as the report wizard)
Indicator heat map
Shows the aggregated value of an indicator per country in map or table format.
Figure 60. Revenue per staff heat map (IBNET website, 2020)
Utility report
Provides a utility report in table format.
One click benchmarking
Provides a quick comparison dashboard of utility data vs other utilities (within region,
country or the whole database).
Top/bottom performers

Allows to compare the utility with the top / bottom utilities, by percentiles, within region,
country or the whole database.
Correlation
Allows to create a correlation for two indicators in a X-Y scatter graph for a utility and its
closest peers.

c. Analytics for IBNET websites
Detailed Google Analytics data will be provided in a curated way to understand the impact
of the tool through the Internet traffic it has generated over the years.

http://www.ib-net.org
Analytics www.ib-net.org Go to report
Audience Overview
Jun 1, 2007 - Feb 12, 2020
All Users
100.00% Users
Overview
Users
6,000
4,000
2,000
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
New Visitor Returning Visitor

Users New Users Sessions
364,850 364,735 476,474 13.4%
Number of Sessions per User Pageviews Pages / Session
1.31 1,589,520 3.34

86.6%
Avg. Session Duration Bounce Rate
00:02:56 68.17%
Language Users % Users
1. en-us 13,031 42.23%
2. es-es 3,465 11.23%
3. en-gb 1,962 6.36%
4. es-419 1,803 5.84%
5. fr-fr 961 3.11%
6. ru-ru 789 2.56%
7. es-us 762 2.47%
8. fr 735 2.38%
9. pt-br 732 2.37%
10. es 581 1.88%
© 2020 Google
Audience Overview
Jun 1, 2007 - Feb 12, 2020
All Users
100.00% Users
Overview
Avg. Session Duration
5m
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
New Visitor Returning Visitor

Users New Users Sessions
364,850 364,735 476,474 13.4%
Number of Sessions per User Pageviews Pages / Session
1.31 1,589,520 3.34

86.6%
Avg. Session Duration Bounce Rate
00:02:56 68.17%
Language Users % Users
1. en-us 13,031 42.23%
2. es-es 3,465 11.23%
3. en-gb 1,962 6.36%
4. es-419 1,803 5.84%
5. fr-fr 961 3.11%
6. ru-ru 789 2.56%
7. es-us 762 2.47%
8. fr 735 2.38%
9. pt-br 732 2.37%
10. es 581 1.88%
© 2020 Google
New vs Returning
Jun 1, 2007 - Feb 12, 2020
All Users
0.00% Users
Explorer
Summary
Users
1
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
Acquisition Behavior Conversions Goal 1: Search DB

User Type
New Bounce Pages / Avg. Session Search DB (Goal 1 Search DB (Goal 1 Search DB (Goal 1
Users Sessions
Users Rate Session Duration Conversion Rate) Completions) Value)
0 365,191 476,474 68.17% 3.34 00:02:56 3.16% 15,079 $15,079.00

% of % of % of Avg for Avg for Avg for View: Avg for View: % of Total: % of Total:
Total: Total: Total: View: View: 00:02:56 3.16% 100.00% 100.00%
0.00% 100.13% 100.00% 68.17% 3.34 (0.00%) (0.00%) (15,079) ($15,079.00)
(0) (364,735) (476,474) (0.00%) (0.00%)
1. New Visitor 0 365,191 365,191 75.24% 2.44 00:01:47 2.06% 7,511 $7,511.00
(0.00%) (100.00%) (76.64%) (49.81%) (49.81%)
2. Returning Visitor 0 0 111,283 44.97% 6.29 00:06:41 6.80% 7,568 $7,568.00

(0.00%) (0.00%) (23.36%) (50.19%) (50.19%)
Rows 1 - 2 of 2
© 2020 Google
Frequency & Recency

Jun 1, 2007 - Feb 12, 2020
All Users
0.00% Users (100.00% Sessions)
Distribution
Count of Sessions
Sessions Pageviews
476,474 1,589,520
% of Total: 100.00% (476,474) % of Total: 100.00% (1,589,520)
Count of Sessions Sessions Pageviews
1 365,191 889,997
2 40,290 216,900
3 15,235 101,345
4 8,649 62,535
5 5,760 45,699
6 4,181 33,622
7 3,170 25,156
8 2,546 20,004
9-14 8,672 66,280
15-25 6,433 39,704
26-50 5,615 34,204
51-100 4,022 19,047
101-200 3,070 14,573
201+ 3,640 20,454
© 2020 Google
Engagement
Jun 1, 2007 - Feb 12, 2020
All Users
0.00% Users (100.00% Sessions)
Distribution
Page Depth
Sessions Pageviews
476,474 1,589,520
% of Total: 100.00% (476,474) % of Total: 100.00% (1,589,520)
Page Depth Sessions Pageviews
<1 741 0
1 327,664 327,664
2 43,770 87,540
3 23,186 69,558
4 13,354 53,416
5 10,660 53,300
6 7,321 43,926
7 6,383 44,681
8 4,980 39,840
9 4,349 39,141
10 3,499 34,990
11 3,176 34,936
12 2,612 31,344
13 2,299 29,887
14 2,087 29,218
15 1,737 26,055
16 1,567 25,072
17 1,322 22,474
18 1,280 23,040
19 1,079 20,501
20+ 13,408 552,937
© 2020 Google
Acquisition Overview
Jun 1, 2007 - Feb 12, 2020
All Users
0.00% Users
Primary Dimension: Conversion:
Top Channels All Goals Edit Channel Grouping
Top Channels Users Conversions
Users Goal Conversion Rate

1 100.00%
There is no data for this view. Direct
Email
Organic Search
Referral 0 50.00%
Social
2010 2015 2020 2010 2015 2020
Acquisition Behavior Conversions

Users New Users Sessions Bounce Rate Pages / Avg. Goal Goal Goal Value
Session Session Conversion Completions
Duration Rate
0 364,735 476,474 68.17% 3.34 00:02:56 3.16% 15,079 $15,079.00
1 Direct 0 60.66% 0.37%
2 Email 0 72.73% 0.00%
3 Organic Search 0 61.42% 0.02%
4 Referral 0 51.11% 6.35%
5 Social 0 52.63% 0.00%
To see all 5 Channels click here.
© 2020 Google
Location
Jun 1, 2007 - Feb 12, 2020
All Users
0.00% Users
Map Overlay
Summary
0 0
Acquisition Behavior Conversions Goal 1: Search DB

Country
New Bounce Pages / Avg. Session Search DB (Goal 1 Search DB (Goal 1 Search DB (Goal
Users Sessions
Users Rate Session Duration Conversion Rate) Completions) 1 Value)
0 365,191 476,474 68.17% 3.34 00:02:56 3.16% 15,079 $15,079.00

% of % of % of Avg for Avg for Avg for View: Avg for View: % of Total: % of Total:
Total: Total: Total: View: View: 00:02:56 3.16% 100.00% 100.00%
0.00% 100.13% 100.00% 68.17% 3.34 (0.00%) (0.00%) (15,079) ($15,079.00)
(0) (364,735) (476,474) (0.00%) (0.00%)
1. Mexico 0 54,254 59,670 85.16% 1.52 00:01:09 0.47% 278 $278.00

(0.00%) (14.86%) (12.52%) (1.84%) (1.84%)
2. United States 0 37,170 57,338 59.41% 4.16 00:03:41 6.21% 3,558 $3,558.00
(0.00%) (10.18%) (12.03%) (23.60%) (23.60%)
3. Colombia 0 25,949 28,801 84.04% 1.61 00:01:11 1.23% 355 $355.00

(0.00%) (7.11%) (6.04%) (2.35%) (2.35%)
4. Peru 0 16,451 18,096 84.26% 1.70 00:01:10 0.56% 102 $102.00

(0.00%) (4.50%) (3.80%) (0.68%) (0.68%)
5. India 0 15,073 18,607 70.41% 2.78 00:02:45 3.24% 602 $602.00

(0.00%) (4.13%) (3.91%) (3.99%) (3.99%)
6. United Kingdom 0 12,297 17,278 58.97% 4.67 00:04:00 4.37% 755 $755.00
(0.00%) (3.37%) (3.63%) (5.01%) (5.01%)
7. France 0 12,069 15,700 65.56% 3.61 00:02:43 3.03% 476 $476.00

(0.00%) (3.30%) (3.30%) (3.16%) (3.16%)
8. Russia 0 11,280 17,581 64.70% 3.73 00:03:41 2.88% 507 $507.00

(0.00%) (3.09%) (3.69%) (3.36%) (3.36%)
9. Venezuela 0 11,084 12,220 86.24% 1.33 00:00:56 0.09% 11 $11.00

(0.00%) (3.04%) (2.56%) (0.07%) (0.07%)
10. Spain 0 10,415 12,187 75.33% 2.85 00:02:01 2.50% 305 $305.00
(0.00%) (2.85%) (2.56%) (2.02%) (2.02%)
11. Ecuador 0 8,354 9,277 84.11% 1.76 00:01:26 0.47% 44 $44.00

(0.00%) (2.29%) (1.95%) (0.29%) (0.29%)
12. Brazil 0 7,921 10,107 62.80% 4.15 00:03:20 1.77% 179 $179.00
(0.00%) (2.17%) (2.12%) (1.19%) (1.19%)
13. Chile 0 6,610 7,723 77.63% 2.95 00:02:06 1.11% 86 $86.00

(0.00%) (1.81%) (1.62%) (0.57%) (0.57%)
14. Canada 0 5,708 6,660 69.88% 2.70 00:01:59 2.85% 190 $190.00
(0.00%) (1.56%) (1.40%) (1.26%) (1.26%)
15. Argentina 0 5,142 8,137 57.74% 5.83 00:05:32 3.21% 261 $261.00
(0.00%) (1.41%) (1.71%) (1.73%) (1.73%)
16. Germany 0 4,946 7,474 52.11% 4.88 00:04:10 8.38% 626 $626.00
(0.00%) (1.35%) (1.57%) (4.15%) (4.15%)
17. Philippines 0 4,771 5,741 68.98% 2.81 00:02:47 2.04% 117 $117.00
(0.00%) (1.31%) (1.20%) (0.78%) (0.78%)
18. Australia 0 4,467 5,582 61.77% 3.65 00:02:55 3.96% 221 $221.00
(0.00%) (1.22%) (1.17%) (1.47%) (1.47%)
19. Guatemala 0 4,316 4,689 87.14% 1.27 00:00:52 0.04% 2 $2.00

(0.00%) (1.18%) (0.98%) (0.01%) (0.01%)
20. Japan 0 3,707 6,598 39.69% 7.36 00:07:15 14.28% 942 $942.00
(0.00%) (1.02%) (1.38%) (6.25%) (6.25%)
21. Dominican Republic 0 3,453 3,801 83.24% 1.48 00:01:04 0.13% 5 $5.00
(0.00%) (0.95%) (0.80%) (0.03%) (0.03%)
22. Ukraine 0 3,208 5,163 67.91% 3.14 00:02:45 0.97% 50 $50.00

(0.00%) (0.88%) (1.08%) (0.33%) (0.33%)
23. Malaysia 0 3,180 3,869 68.93% 3.14 00:02:51 4.99% 193 $193.00
(0.00%) (0.87%) (0.81%) (1.28%) (1.28%)
24. (not set) 0 3,057 3,607 76.93% 1.98 00:01:48 0.33% 12 $12.00
(0.00%) (0.84%) (0.76%) (0.08%) (0.08%)
25. Netherlands 0 3,003 4,757 48.20% 4.96 00:04:16 6.12% 291 $291.00
(0.00%) (0.82%) (1.00%) (1.93%) (1.93%)
26. South Africa 0 2,900 4,073 60.57% 4.18 00:04:06 3.12% 127 $127.00
(0.00%) (0.79%) (0.85%) (0.84%) (0.84%)
27. Kenya 0 2,884 3,702 66.72% 2.72 00:02:45 1.40% 52 $52.00

(0.00%) (0.79%) (0.78%) (0.34%) (0.34%)
28. Bolivia 0 2,620 2,870 84.43% 1.59 00:01:07 0.63% 18 $18.00

(0.00%) (0.72%) (0.60%) (0.12%) (0.12%)
29. Pakistan 0 2,341 3,067 63.22% 3.39 00:03:29 2.58% 79 $79.00

(0.00%) (0.64%) (0.64%) (0.52%) (0.52%)
30. Italy 0 2,320 3,346 53.08% 4.70 00:04:18 5.62% 188 $188.00
(0.00%) (0.64%) (0.70%) (1.25%) (1.25%)
31. Morocco 0 2,292 2,780 76.29% 2.11 00:01:50 0.97% 27 $27.00

(0.00%) (0.63%) (0.58%) (0.18%) (0.18%)
32. China 0 2,242 3,527 59.65% 4.81 00:05:24 6.21% 219 $219.00
(0.00%) (0.61%) (0.74%) (1.45%) (1.45%)
33. Singapore 0 2,083 2,901 53.36% 4.74 00:04:51 7.14% 207 $207.00
(0.00%) (0.57%) (0.61%) (1.37%) (1.37%)
34. Tunisia 0 1,819 2,557 76.57% 2.16 00:02:02 2.85% 73 $73.00

(0.00%) (0.50%) (0.54%) (0.48%) (0.48%)
35. Costa Rica 0 1,773 2,183 84.06% 1.69 00:01:06 0.96% 21 $21.00
(0.00%) (0.49%) (0.46%) (0.14%) (0.14%)
36. Portugal 0 1,747 2,640 54.89% 4.75 00:03:39 2.77% 73 $73.00

(0.00%) (0.48%) (0.55%) (0.48%) (0.48%)
37. Switzerland 0 1,714 2,570 50.97% 4.88 00:03:50 6.30% 162 $162.00
(0.00%) (0.47%) (0.54%) (1.07%) (1.07%)
38. Indonesia 0 1,671 2,092 66.40% 2.71 00:02:50 3.68% 77 $77.00

(0.00%) (0.46%) (0.44%) (0.51%) (0.51%)
39. El Salvador 0 1,564 1,712 85.46% 1.53 00:01:04 0.53% 9 $9.00

(0.00%) (0.43%) (0.36%) (0.06%) (0.06%)
40. Honduras 0 1,534 1,895 70.08% 3.21 00:02:31 1.58% 30 $30.00

(0.00%) (0.42%) (0.40%) (0.20%) (0.20%)
41. Panama 0 1,516 1,738 80.55% 1.98 00:01:31 0.52% 9 $9.00

(0.00%) (0.42%) (0.36%) (0.06%) (0.06%)
42. Belgium 0 1,493 2,127 63.89% 3.49 00:03:12 2.77% 59 $59.00

(0.00%) (0.41%) (0.45%) (0.39%) (0.39%)
43. United Arab Emirates 0 1,474 2,034 54.28% 5.33 00:04:23 5.31% 108 $108.00
(0.00%) (0.40%) (0.43%) (0.72%) (0.72%)
44. Turkey 0 1,296 1,895 57.04% 4.44 00:03:58 4.96% 94 $94.00

(0.00%) (0.35%) (0.40%) (0.62%) (0.62%)
45. Vietnam 0 1,271 2,098 52.57% 4.14 00:04:53 6.20% 130 $130.00
(0.00%) (0.35%) (0.44%) (0.86%) (0.86%)
46. Saudi Arabia 0 1,245 1,996 42.99% 6.43 00:06:08 6.71% 134 $134.00
(0.00%) (0.34%) (0.42%) (0.89%) (0.89%)
47. South Korea 0 1,232 1,646 57.35% 4.00 00:03:52 5.22% 86 $86.00
(0.00%) (0.34%) (0.35%) (0.57%) (0.57%)
48. Kazakhstan 0 1,228 1,833 61.97% 6.22 00:05:32 0.16% 3 $3.00

(0.00%) (0.34%) (0.38%) (0.02%) (0.02%)
49. Nigeria 0 1,129 1,622 63.81% 3.16 00:03:43 1.91% 31 $31.00

(0.00%) (0.31%) (0.34%) (0.21%) (0.21%)
50. Nicaragua 0 1,105 1,188 77.10% 2.34 00:01:37 1.26% 15 $15.00

(0.00%) (0.30%) (0.25%) (0.10%) (0.10%)
51. Thailand 0 1,096 1,561 63.36% 3.63 00:03:39 3.72% 58 $58.00

(0.00%) (0.30%) (0.33%) (0.38%) (0.38%)
52. Bangladesh 0 1,094 1,314 64.92% 3.24 00:03:00 4.49% 59 $59.00

(0.00%) (0.30%) (0.28%) (0.39%) (0.39%)
53. New Zealand 0 1,067 1,625 47.69% 5.36 00:03:57 6.22% 101 $101.00
(0.00%) (0.29%) (0.34%) (0.67%) (0.67%)
54. Romania 0 1,066 1,657 39.59% 6.11 00:06:05 11.89% 197 $197.00
(0.00%) (0.29%) (0.35%) (1.31%) (1.31%)
55. Algeria 0 1,020 1,206 72.97% 2.21 00:02:19 0.41% 5 $5.00

(0.00%) (0.28%) (0.25%) (0.03%) (0.03%)
56. Ethiopia 0 987 1,366 57.03% 3.39 00:03:57 2.93% 40 $40.00

(0.00%) (0.27%) (0.29%) (0.27%) (0.27%)
57. Hong Kong 0 982 1,266 60.27% 3.86 00:03:20 5.21% 66 $66.00
(0.00%) (0.27%) (0.27%) (0.44%) (0.44%)
58. Poland 0 972 1,887 58.66% 3.69 00:03:36 4.24% 80 $80.00

58. oa d 58.66% 3.69 00:03:36 . %
(0.00%) (0.27%) (0.40%) (0.53%) (0.53%)
59. Austria 0 895 1,644 40.82% 6.56 00:05:40 7.42% 122 $122.00
(0.00%) (0.25%) (0.35%) (0.81%) (0.81%)
60. Sweden 0 892 1,101 68.66% 3.09 00:02:05 3.63% 40 $40.00

(0.00%) (0.24%) (0.23%) (0.27%) (0.27%)
61. Serbia 0 888 2,184 41.94% 6.40 00:06:09 5.13% 112 $112.00
(0.00%) (0.24%) (0.46%) (0.74%) (0.74%)
62. Belarus 0 886 1,316 66.34% 4.11 00:02:40 0.23% 3 $3.00

(0.00%) (0.24%) (0.28%) (0.02%) (0.02%)
63. Egypt 0 874 1,309 49.35% 5.18 00:04:59 6.65% 87 $87.00

(0.00%) (0.24%) (0.27%) (0.58%) (0.58%)
64. Ireland 0 799 911 61.69% 3.23 00:02:12 1.87% 17 $17.00

(0.00%) (0.22%) (0.19%) (0.11%) (0.11%)
65. Denmark 0 790 1,125 49.69% 4.77 00:03:26 5.42% 61 $61.00

(0.00%) (0.22%) (0.24%) (0.40%) (0.40%)
66. Bosnia & Herzegovina 0 783 1,396 46.78% 6.89 00:04:48 4.15% 58 $58.00
(0.00%) (0.21%) (0.29%) (0.38%) (0.38%)
67. Czechia 0 774 1,209 49.63% 5.60 00:04:50 5.79% 70 $70.00

(0.00%) (0.21%) (0.25%) (0.46%) (0.46%)
68. Greece 0 765 1,559 51.70% 9.28 00:07:55 1.67% 26 $26.00

(0.00%) (0.21%) (0.33%) (0.17%) (0.17%)
69. Moldova 0 737 1,565 45.11% 5.71 00:05:02 2.43% 38 $38.00

(0.00%) (0.20%) (0.33%) (0.25%) (0.25%)
70. Israel 0 726 1,497 45.82% 5.94 00:06:14 8.08% 121 $121.00
(0.00%) (0.20%) (0.31%) (0.80%) (0.80%)
71. Hungary 0 704 1,624 42.18% 6.16 00:06:40 23.52% 382 $382.00
(0.00%) (0.19%) (0.34%) (2.53%) (2.53%)
72. Tanzania 0 673 828 66.43% 2.58 00:02:51 1.57% 13 $13.00

(0.00%) (0.18%) (0.17%) (0.09%) (0.09%)
73. Sri Lanka 0 659 817 59.49% 4.21 00:04:03 2.33% 19 $19.00
(0.00%) (0.18%) (0.17%) (0.13%) (0.13%)
74. Iran 0 627 1,012 60.57% 5.69 00:05:29 3.66% 37 $37.00

(0.00%) (0.17%) (0.21%) (0.25%) (0.25%)
75. Paraguay 0 618 687 85.59% 1.53 00:01:01 1.02% 7 $7.00

(0.00%) (0.17%) (0.14%) (0.05%) (0.05%)
76. North Macedonia 0 598 1,159 36.32% 5.69 00:05:53 3.36% 39 $39.00
(0.00%) (0.16%) (0.24%) (0.26%) (0.26%)
77. Puerto Rico 0 577 633 79.15% 1.95 00:01:18 1.26% 8 $8.00
(0.00%) (0.16%) (0.13%) (0.05%) (0.05%)
78. Jordan 0 564 945 45.08% 5.89 00:05:55 3.07% 29 $29.00

(0.00%) (0.15%) (0.20%) (0.19%) (0.19%)
79. Albania 0 561 837 41.58% 5.84 00:04:41 2.87% 24 $24.00

(0.00%) (0.15%) (0.18%) (0.16%) (0.16%)
80. Ghana 0 561 774 54.65% 4.48 00:07:33 8.27% 64 $64.00

(0.00%) (0.15%) (0.16%) (0.42%) (0.42%)
81. Finland 0 549 749 61.55% 3.07 00:02:20 3.74% 28 $28.00

(0.00%) (0.15%) (0.16%) (0.19%) (0.19%)
82. Uganda 0 539 810 57.16% 3.38 00:05:04 3.58% 29 $29.00

(0.00%) (0.15%) (0.17%) (0.19%) (0.19%)
83. Bulgaria 0 519 883 47.90% 5.08 00:05:10 5.44% 48 $48.00

(0.00%) (0.14%) (0.19%) (0.32%) (0.32%)
84. Senegal 0 507 671 62.00% 3.41 00:03:36 2.98% 20 $20.00

(0.00%) (0.14%) (0.14%) (0.13%) (0.13%)
85. Uruguay 0 507 626 69.49% 4.25 00:02:58 2.72% 17 $17.00

(0.00%) (0.14%) (0.13%) (0.11%) (0.11%)
86. Côte d’Ivoire 0 499 675 63.26% 4.37 00:04:06 4.30% 29 $29.00
(0.00%) (0.14%) (0.14%) (0.19%) (0.19%)
87. Taiwan 0 486 694 52.45% 4.88 00:05:00 5.76% 40 $40.00

(0.00%) (0.13%) (0.15%) (0.27%) (0.27%)
88. Croatia 0 484 761 47.31% 5.82 00:04:34 8.94% 68 $68.00

(0.00%) (0.13%) (0.16%) (0.45%) (0.45%)
89. Norway 0 439 572 63.81% 4.43 00:03:21 4.37% 25 $25.00

(0.00%) (0.12%) (0.12%) (0.17%) (0.17%)
90. Lebanon 0 427 693 48.63% 5.05 00:04:31 4.76% 33 $33.00

(0.00%) (0.12%) (0.15%) (0.22%) (0.22%)
91. Zimbabwe 0 420 598 59.36% 2.97 00:03:32 0.17% 1 $1.00

(0.00%) (0.12%) (0.13%) (0.01%) (0.01%)
92. Trinidad & Tobago 0 405 567 51.85% 4.17 00:04:12 2.82% 16 $16.00
(0.00%) (0.11%) (0.12%) (0.11%) (0.11%)
93. Lithuania 0 386 494 60.73% 4.26 00:03:02 3.85% 19 $19.00

(0.00%) (0.11%) (0.10%) (0.13%) (0.13%)
94. Cameroon 0 367 511 69.67% 3.25 00:03:46 0.98% 5 $5.00
(0.00%) (0.10%) (0.11%) (0.03%) (0.03%)
95. Nepal 0 367 465 62.58% 2.63 00:02:36 4.09% 19 $19.00

(0.00%) (0.10%) (0.10%) (0.13%) (0.13%)
96. Cambodia 0 353 478 53.97% 4.69 00:04:26 3.97% 19 $19.00

(0.00%) (0.10%) (0.10%) (0.13%) (0.13%)
97. Jamaica 0 337 476 59.03% 3.41 00:03:04 4.41% 21 $21.00

(0.00%) (0.09%) (0.10%) (0.14%) (0.14%)
98. Georgia 0 313 478 53.56% 5.96 00:05:14 4.81% 23 $23.00

(0.00%) (0.09%) (0.10%) (0.15%) (0.15%)
99. Slovakia 0 305 462 60.82% 4.27 00:03:48 2.81% 13 $13.00

(0.00%) (0.08%) (0.10%) (0.09%) (0.09%)
100. Fiji 0 276 450 46.22% 5.17 00:04:48 1.33% 6 $6.00

(0.00%) (0.08%) (0.09%) (0.04%) (0.04%)
101. Uzbekistan 0 276 610 54.10% 5.27 00:05:19 1.80% 11 $11.00

(0.00%) (0.08%) (0.13%) (0.07%) (0.07%)
102. Zambia 0 272 429 54.31% 4.24 00:04:57 1.40% 6 $6.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.09%) (0.04%) (0.04%)
103. Palestine 0 270 470 44.26% 6.15 00:04:52 3.40% 16 $16.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.10%) (0.11%) (0.11%)
104. Cuba 0 268 298 80.54% 1.71 00:01:33 0.00% 0 $0.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.06%) (0.00%) (0.00%)
105. Mozambique 0 267 589 45.33% 4.75 00:06:08 3.90% 23 $23.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.12%) (0.15%) (0.15%)
106. Latvia 0 262 304 67.11% 3.27 00:02:18 1.97% 6 $6.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.06%) (0.04%) (0.04%)
107. Madagascar 0 262 309 67.31% 2.69 00:02:52 1.62% 5 $5.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.06%) (0.03%) (0.03%)
108. Armenia 0 256 480 38.96% 8.03 00:07:00 5.21% 25 $25.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.10%) (0.17%) (0.17%)
109. Qatar 0 252 345 56.81% 5.00 00:04:39 13.33% 46 $46.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.07%) (0.31%) (0.31%)
110. Kyrgyzstan 0 247 640 41.88% 6.47 00:07:20 3.59% 23 $23.00

(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.13%) (0.15%) (0.15%)
111. Congo - Kinshasa 0 240 278 73.02% 2.28 00:03:04 0.36% 1 $1.00
(0.00%) (0.07%) (0.06%) (0.01%) (0.01%)
112. Luxembourg 0 236 316 45.57% 6.04 00:03:52 9.81% 31 $31.00

(0.00%) (0.06%) (0.07%) (0.21%) (0.21%)
113. Estonia 0 232 593 45.70% 6.98 00:07:04 2.19% 13 $13.00

(0.00%) (0.06%) (0.12%) (0.09%) (0.09%)
114. Slovenia 0 225 328 45.43% 5.51 00:04:17 5.18% 17 $17.00

(0.00%) (0.06%) (0.07%) (0.11%) (0.11%)
115. Iraq 0 205 308 48.38% 5.39 00:05:46 1.95% 6 $6.00

(0.00%) (0.06%) (0.06%) (0.04%) (0.04%)
116. Azerbaijan 0 204 341 52.79% 6.96 00:06:45 1.76% 6 $6.00

(0.00%) (0.06%) (0.07%) (0.04%) (0.04%)
117. Mauritius 0 203 234 69.23% 2.96 00:02:42 1.28% 3 $3.00

(0.00%) (0.06%) (0.05%) (0.02%) (0.02%)
118. Benin 0 199 238 70.17% 2.51 00:02:49 1.68% 4 $4.00

(0.00%) (0.05%) (0.05%) (0.03%) (0.03%)
119. Botswana 0 185 210 66.19% 2.66 00:03:09 0.95% 2 $2.00

(0.00%) (0.05%) (0.04%) (0.01%) (0.01%)
120. Rwanda 0 183 264 54.55% 6.14 00:04:11 1.14% 3 $3.00

(0.00%) (0.05%) (0.06%) (0.02%) (0.02%)
121. Oman 0 177 214 60.28% 3.54 00:03:50 0.47% 1 $1.00

(0.00%) (0.05%) (0.04%) (0.01%) (0.01%)
122. Sudan 0 170 206 68.45% 2.71 00:02:39 0.97% 2 $2.00

(0.00%) (0.05%) (0.04%) (0.01%) (0.01%)
123. Kosovo 0 167 429 30.07% 13.84 00:07:24 0.00% 0 $0.00

(0.00%) (0.05%) (0.09%) (0.00%) (0.00%)
124. Mongolia 0 165 346 42.20% 5.52 00:06:08 2.31% 8 $8.00

(0.00%) (0.05%) (0.07%) (0.05%) (0.05%)
125. Malawi 0 164 458 59.83% 2.85 00:04:00 1.53% 7 $7.00

(0.00%) (0.04%) (0.10%) (0.05%) (0.05%)
126. Montenegro 0 161 335 28.06% 7.66 00:07:28 2.39% 8 $8.00

(0.00%) (0.04%) (0.07%) (0.05%) (0.05%)
127. Barbados 0 160 193 58.03% 3.64 00:02:57 1.04% 2 $2.00

(0.00%) (0.04%) (0.04%) (0.01%) (0.01%)
128. Bahrain 0 153 203 53.20% 4.54 00:03:43 0.99% 2 $2.00

(0.00%) (0.04%) (0.04%) (0.01%) (0.01%)
©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET

Position Paper - The Future of IBNET - Final Version v4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Position Paper - The Future of IBNET - Final Version v4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Future of IBNET

This new version of IBNET will not reach perfection or be flawless. By

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 1

Options for the future ...................................................................................................... 10

Conclusions ......................................................................... ¡Error! Marcador no definido.

Market position ................................................................................................................ 18

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 2

IBNET impact 2004-2020 .................................................................................................. 37

2. Value proposition of IBNET ......................................................................................... 49

3. Way forward: IBNET 2.0 .............................................................................................. 62

Conceptual changes to the system .................................................................................. 68

New knowledge products in IBNET 2.0 ............................................................................ 72

New features in the IBNET 2.0 portal............................................................................... 81

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 3

Financial requirements .................................................................................................... 88

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 4

ADB Asian Development Bank

DANUBIS Danube Utility Benchmarking and Information Sharing

DWP Danube Water Program

EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development

IBNET International Benchmarking Network

IAWD International Association of Water Supply Companies in the Danube

IDB Inter-American Development Bank

IFC International Finance Corporation

IWA International Water Association

NGO Non-governmental organization

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

OFWAT Office of Water Services (former denomination)

SEAWUN Southeast Asian Water Utilities Network Initiative

SIASAR Sistema de Información de Agua y Saneamiento Rural (Rural Water and

PWWA Pacific Water and Wastewater Association

WSP Water and Sanitation Program

WRc Water Research Centre

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 5

IBNET analysis and value proposition

0.1.1. 5 key notions about IBNET

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 6

§ IBNET is a conceptually and technologically outdated

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 7

0.1.3. Critical success factors

1) Expectations management is at the core of most of IBNET structural problems

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 8

4) IBNET is a key tool for policy making

5) New indicators and content must be added to IBNET

6) A strategic plan is needed

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 9

0.2.1. IBNET termination – US$ 0

0.2.2. Continuation with current IBNET (status quo) – US$480-640,000 +

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 10

0.2.3. IBNET 2.0 – US$480,000/1,039,000 + US$480,000/970,000 annually

IBNET 2.0 (RECOMMENDED)

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 11

The International Benchmarking Network of Water and Wastewater Utilities (IBNET) is a

In 2012, WSP engaged Castalia Strategic Advisors to produce a Development Marketing

Two are the immediate consequences of this growth:

1) IBNET can no longer be considered a simple benchmarking program anymore.

Currently, these are the main components of IBNET:

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 12

The benchmarking database is essentially a collection of standardized indicators, as it is

1.1.2. Tariff database

Although it is possible to compare tariffs, this can hardly be considered performance

Filter by region and country

©ITA. 2020 The future of IBNET / 13

Access Tariffs via Map