Lakhasly

1.There is a problem obtaining suffi cient electronic diagnostic equipment and spare parts before the modernization is implemented.The irrigation project authorities are not committed to maintaining their canal infrastructure, as evidenced by a quick fi eld tour that clearly indicates extensive deferred maintenance.This is especially common in some projects in which donors fund theautomation and the government has no commitment to maintaining it. An annual maintenance budget of at least 15% of the cost of PLC-based automation components is a good starting point.There is not a clear, advanced delineation of responsibilities among the designers, builders, operators, SCADA, integrators (see Glossary), and others.The irrigation project managers want to use inexpensive PLCs and sensors, regardless of the requirements and capabilities.There is a rush to design and install a large modernization project within a few years, although the project staff does not have adequate experience with modernization concepts, much less with modern SCADA and automation equipment.The project managers want to invent, develop, or construct their own sensors and actuators.Instead, all the planning and design meetings are limited to designers and high-level irrigation project offi cials and economists.This lack of maintenance is due to the lack of accountability and fi nancial transparency, lack of a maintenance plan, and other reasons.Budgets are inadequate to sustain the automation project.The people who ultimately operate and maintain the new system are not brought into early and continued discussions as important participants.There are unreasonable expectations of massive water conservation and easy operation.There is not a clear understanding that there will inevitably be setbacks with implementation.There are no qualifi ed local integrator companies or organizations in the area.There is no well-defi ned operational objective.Hardware manufacturers promote a system based on available hardware.There is a high turnover rate among irrigation project staff.The designers have little or no experience with modern irrigation system design.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.9.10.11.12.13.14.15.16.

1. The irrigation project authorities are not committed to maintaining
   their canal infrastructure, as evidenced by a quick fi eld tour that
   clearly indicates extensive deferred maintenance. This lack of maintenance is due to the lack of accountability and fi nancial transparency, lack of a maintenance plan, and other reasons.


2. Budgets are inadequate to sustain the automation project. This is
   especially common in some projects in which donors fund theautomation and the government has no commitment to maintaining it. An annual maintenance budget of at least 15% of the cost of
   PLC-based automation components is a good starting point.


3. There is a rush to design and install a large modernization project
   within a few years, although the project staff does not have adequate experience with modernization concepts, much less with
   modern SCADA and automation equipment.


4. The project staff is not qualifi ed to operate and maintain the equipment, and the project authorities are unwilling to spend enough
   money to train the staff properly in advance for many months or
   years.


5. There is a problem obtaining suffi cient electronic diagnostic equipment and spare parts before the modernization is implemented.


6. There are unreasonable expectations of massive water conservation
   and easy operation.


7. There is a high turnover rate among irrigation project staff.


8. There is not a clear, advanced delineation of responsibilities among
   the designers, builders, operators, SCADA, integrators (see Glossary), and others.


9. The irrigation project managers want to use inexpensive PLCs and
   sensors, regardless of the requirements and capabilities.


10. There is not a clear understanding that there will inevitably be
    setbacks with implementation.


11. The project managers want to invent, develop, or construct their
    own sensors and actuators.


12. There are no qualifi ed local integrator companies or organizations
    in the area.


13. There is no well-defi ned operational objective.


14. The people who ultimately operate and maintain the new system
    are not brought into early and continued discussions as important
    participants. Instead, all the planning and design meetings are
    limited to designers and high-level irrigation project offi cials and
    economists.


15. The designers have little or no experience with modern irrigation
    system design.


16. Hardware manufacturers promote a system based on available
    hardware. The common saying is then true: “When all you have is
    a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.