To help mark the one-year anniversary of the joining of XP Solutions and Innovyze, I sat down with VP of Product Management Greg Kowalsky to discuss the Innovyze approach to product development as well as to gain some insight into the future trajectory of Innovyze solutions.

QUESTION: What problems are we trying to solve? Not from an engineering or mathematical standpoint, but from a human standpoint?

Greg Kowalsky, VP of Product Management

KOWALSKY: First and foremost, we’re trying to help our utility and consulting clients serve their communities. There is a cost optimization component where we want our products to help provide higher quality of service so clients can stretch a dollar farther. There is also a health and safety component that includes forecasting and predictive recommendations so that we can help them be prepared when adverse events occur.

QUESTION: How does the Innovyze product team approach product development?

KOWALSKY: We are proactively pushing functionality forward and we want to be more user-centric. Our goal is to understand the work our clients are trying to get done, so we consistently solicit their feedback to solve the challenges they face and strive to meet their needs.

QUESTION: Are there any upcoming product updates scheduled?

KOWALSKY: There are quite a few, for example we’re adding an EPANET engine option for WSPro, which will open up workgroup functionality for users that need compatibility with EPANET. Later this year, we’ll be offering significant speed improvements for XPSWMM simulations with processing enhancements. We’ll also have new releases of InfoWorks ICM, InfoSWMM and our asset management products, InfoNet and InfoMaster.  Longer term, we’re evaluating next generation options for our drainage design products.

QUESTION: What can our customers expect if a current product faces “sunset” status?

KOWALSKY: We often get questions about the future of specific products, especially following the joining of XP Solutions and Innovyze and the combination of our extensive product lines. Our goals for the future are certainly to include more powerfully integrated solutions. Currently, we don’t have immediate plans to end any of our core offerings. If that time comes, we are committed to providing a path forward that leverages the investment a customer has already made to ultimately better serve their needs. We’re lucky that we have many products that are somebody’s “favorite”. Customers can rest assured that they will receive service support and new releases as they have in the past.

QUESTION: How can users get the most from Innovyze products?

KOWALSKY:  We’ve got a great support team – ask for help. There is a positive feedback loop for users when they ask support questions or receive training.  They open more advanced capability and that creates more questions and even more learning. The more customers use the products day-to-day the more they start to understand the full value.  The other way is to explore other Innovyze products.  Almost all our products have hooks, connections or complimentary capabilities that enhance their value when combined.

“It’s a complex challenge, but we have people who gravitate to solving hard problems. It requires an engineering community to make it happen. It requires collaboration.”

QUESTION: What makes the Innovyze product team unique?

KOWALSKY: We have a depth of experience that is unmatched in the industry. Everybody comes from a civil engineering background with many years of direct practioner experience. Our team also has software experience with multiple generations of technology.  We have used pretty much every product out there, going all the way back to early DOS based modeling products.

QUESTION: Words like “smart city”, “digital twin” and “internet of things” are often used to describe futuristic infrastructure management – do you believe this technology is achievable for water infrastructure? Is that somewhere we plan on going?

KOWALSKY: I believe it is achievable, and I especially buy into the digital twin concept. We have a real-time modeling capability now that can simulate future events based on forecast condition.  In the future, utilities should be able to easily preview operating conditions for the next week like you can estimate your travel time for a future trip in Google Maps.  Are we going to have a CSO event tomorrow morning? You’ll be able to get an instant alert and estimate ahead of time. Leading utilities are there today with a fraction of their network. Maybe everyone won’t be there in 2-5 years, but it will be a common aspiration. Everyone will be on this path.

QUESTION: Anything else you’d like to add about the Innovyze Product Team?

KOWALSKY: We are passionate about the broader water resources industry, which is proven by our commitment to creating better products.  It’s a complex challenge, but we have people who gravitate to solving hard problems. It requires an engineering community to make it happen. It requires collaboration.

Want more information on Innovyze Products? Get in touch with us today.

Share this post!

• 

In a recent keynote speech at Wharton’s Initiative for Global Environmental Leadership (IGEL), Innovyze CEO Colby Manwaring took the stage to address the current state of flood modeling techniques. The story? We can do better. Wet weather is becoming more unpredictable and the impacts are being felt by our communities. Municipalities, engineering consultants, and government agencies cannot continue to operate with outdated flood models that are plagued by inaccurate or incomplete data. If they do, residents and businesses are left vulnerable to flood risks and costs, compromising the integrity of local governments.

Where We Come from Determines Where We Are

The presentation began with a call to re-evaluate current flood modeling methods: “We need to consider our frame of reference if we are going to get to a solution, we need to consider our assumptions on where we are.”, Colby stated. Once we realize where we come from, we can plot a course for the future.

Colby goes on to explain that what we currently know about flood forecasting, mapping, and modeling originated in the 1970’s. During this period, the foundation was laid for data collection systems and computing that was later used to shape flood modeling approaches.

These methods were eventually codified and legislated in the developed world based on key data points extracted from weather patterns. The result was a reliance on risk assessments based on 100-year return intervals of flooding (probably from most people thinking “I won’t be here in 100 years, so I’m safe”). In an elementary sense, risk assessment was framed as: How likely is an area to flood throughout a 100-year time frame: once? 15 times? 40 times? This framework for risk assessment is relatable to most people, regulators and the public alike, but somewhere along the way the understanding was lost that a “100-year flood” is just a way of saying that every year there is a 1% chance of this flood occurring.  Probability this year is not affected by last year’s events, nor by future events – so we can have “100-year floods” anytime.

Flood mapping based on this framework was, inevitably, misunderstood and flawed. Weather and rainfall input data was spread out, disjointed, and often assumed because it is hard to predict and codify. The inaccuracies in rainfall data contributed to the assumptions made for the overall model, which led to the need for tweaking of output data.

Flood maps based on 100-year risk assessments emerged as a binary, or “single truth”, basis for flood insurance, infrastructure planning, and risk mitigation. Businesses and residents were either in or out of the floodplain, and insurance costs were­­ calculated accordingly. In reality, flood emergencies do not occur in an “in vs. out”, binary manner. They are more fluid than that – they are graduated events that we are trying to quantify with probabilistic methods – so floods don’t stop at some imaginary floodplain line.

What Happens when the Map is Wrong?

In 2012, Hurricane Sandy ravaged the US east coast and the Caribbean. Hundreds of thousands of housing units were destroyed and billions of dollars were spent in reconstruction efforts for infrastructure, homes, and businesses.

In his first major address following the disastrous storm, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg compared the FEMA 100-year flood maps to the actual flooding caused by the storm. According to the former mayor “two-thirds of all homes damaged by Sandy [were] outside of FEMA’s existing 100-year flood maps.”

Continue reading →

Share this post!

•