In July, we brought together Stream’s Advisory Group 2 (Technical) which comprises subject matter experts from 16 water companies and other industry stakeholders. Co-chaired by Icebreaker One and Pennon Group, this group advises and supports the project partners as they commence work on Stream’s Implementation Phase.
Meeting Aims
- Members to review and refine the end of phase report findings
- Members to shape the impact and outcomes into playback for their senior stakeholders
Summary:
- It was noted that this quarter is about prepping for the next phase of funding.
- It was noted that activities for this quarter include things like finalising team structure, tooling, as well as the analytics work that has been carried over.
- It was discussed that the analytics work last quarter focused on what we need and this quarter is making decisions around those needs.
- It was noted that a final version of the Phase 2 report will be submitted on 25th July after review by the Steering Group.
End of Phase Report – Group 1 feedback:
- It was noted that approximately £1.2 million in duplicated project costs have been avoided through shared efforts under Stream.
- It was noted that several companies avoided consultancy costs of £140–150k by discontinuing plans for separate open data portals and opting to publish via Stream.
- It was noted that the NSOH data standard was agreed efficiently in just three sessions, attributed to Stream’s facilitation and process maturity.
- It was discussed that the second year of APR reporting was significantly easier than the first, reducing resource burden and improving staff well-being.
- It was noted that APIs have enabled real-time regulatory compliance tracking, helping companies replicate Ofwat’s processes and address site-level issues.
- It was noted that Stream’s joint and individual risk assessments provide layered protection against data breaches, with learnings taken from the energy sector.
End of Phase Report – Group 2:
- It was noted that Stream provides governance benefits, particularly in making participation straightforward and cost-efficient.
- It was discussed that the programme has strengthened internal governance and encouraged better data-sharing practices across organisations.
- It was noted that the platform and support team enable water companies to engage with open data in a way that may not have been possible without Stream.
- It was suggested that stronger evidence of external impact, such as testimonials from third-party data users, would further demonstrate value.
- It was noted that Stream fosters a culture of trust and collaboration, supporting wider industry engagement and innovation.
Sharing the report within organisations:
- It was noted that Stream outcomes and benefits should be shared internally to raise awareness and reinforce the programme’s value.
- It was discussed that tailored materials are needed:
- A concise one-slide summary of key benefits for executive engagement.
- A fuller slide deck to support team discussions and address concerns around data sharing and risk.
- It was noted that modular, reusable content would help water companies present Stream’s work effectively at forums such as board or risk committees.
- It was noted that content should highlight Stream’s achievements, sector benefits, and risk management, e.g., the rivers/aquifers example resonated well.
- It was noted that having a clear route to access presentation materials would support internal communication efforts.