One pane for every pump, plant, and lift station. UtilityCockpit gives water and wastewater operators the reliability picture their SCADA screens don't show, and gives leadership continuous resilience evidence that reads like a report, not a log file.
Every utility has the same three artifacts: SCADA alarms, run tickets, and compliance paperwork. What almost none of them have is the layer that checks those against each other, and against what the water is actually doing.
Risk assessments and emergency response plans get certified. Findings get filed. Maintenance logs get signed. The binder looks great.
A setpoint drifts. A pump runs long. A chemical feed trends odd overnight. Each signal lives in a different screen, and nobody's job is to correlate them.
Retirements, one-deep roles, and on-call rotations mean the person who would have noticed is stretched across three other problems. Findings become shelf documents.
The same monitored data, surfaced for the people who need it. Operations gets a cockpit. Leadership gets a scorecard. IT gets an architecture it can approve in one meeting.
Switch tabs to move between the operator's cockpit, the leadership scorecard, and the IT review view. All data below is illustrative.
| Open item | Site | Status | Window |
|---|---|---|---|
| Chemical feed setpoint drifting from baseline | WTP No. 1 | Advisory | Verify against bench test this week |
| Pump 2 runtime anomaly (this alert) | Lift Station 4 | Advisory | Inspect before weekend |
| Tank telemetry gap, 02:00–02:40 | Elevated Tank 2 | Resolved | Radio path logged & closed |
| Finding | Action taken | Evidence | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| No independent visibility into remote-site telemetry | Passive monitoring across 4 stations | Live dashboard, 90-day history | Closed |
| No documented anomaly-response procedure | Runbooks tied to each alert type | Runbook library, drill log | Closed |
| Aging pump fleet, unknown condition | Runtime & health baselines per pump | Health trend per asset | In progress |
Every finding from your last risk assessment, tracked to closure, with evidence attached. When the next recertification cycle opens, the submission is already written.
| Review item | Answer |
|---|---|
| Can this platform change anything in the control system? | No. Collection is passive (network taps) or read-only (historian / API pulls). There is no write path. |
| What happens if the platform goes down? | Nothing, operationally. It observes the process; it is not part of the process. |
| Who administers it? | Delivered as a managed service. IT reviews architecture and access; operations consumes the outcome. |
Delivered by an established public-sector integrator: sensors and taps installed by a proven network bench, the platform run for you, detections and dashboards tuned to your plants, thresholds set by your operators. Your staff consume an outcome, not a science project.
Prove the method where it's cheap to be wrong, with your operators grading our homework at every step.
A working session with your operators around 15 scenario cards drawn from real utility incidents. They correct the cards with your plants' normal numbers. Those corrections become the detection thresholds.
Taps and read-only pulls at one plant or station group. Roughly 30 to 60 days of baseline, with the cockpit live from week one. Nothing touches the control loop.
Your risk-assessment findings mapped to what the pilot proved, presented as a resilience roadmap your council or board can fund line by line.
Thresholds tuned as seasons change, new stations added to the rollup, evidence accumulating for the next recertification cycle. Multi-site from day one if you run more than one system.
Big enough that a bad week makes the news, small enough that nobody's hiring a data team. The core fit.
River authorities, regional districts, and utilities running many plants and dozens of remote sites on thin windshield time.
The platform is already bought and IT already trusts it. The cockpit is an expansion, not a procurement.
Just finished a risk and resilience assessment? The findings list is a funded to-do list. This is how it gets worked.
New subdivisions, new stations, same crew. Visibility is how a growing system stays ahead of its own map.
When the water shows up all at once, a live rollup of every station becomes emergency situational awareness.
No. It's reliability visibility for operations. The same passive data does produce security-grade evidence, and your IT and security folks will like what they see, but the cockpit is built for the people who keep the water moving. If someone tries to sell you this as an IT project, they've misunderstood the job.
Never. Collection is passive (network taps or SPAN ports) and read-only (historian or API pulls). There are no agents on control hardware, no inbound connections, and no write path. If the platform disappeared tomorrow, your process wouldn't notice.
Keep them. This doesn't replace controls work, programming, or panel builds. It watches the outputs of what they build and often hands them better work orders. Integrators tend to like it once they see it isn't aimed at them.
Then you're most of the way there. The cockpit is delivered as content on the platform you own: dashboards, detections, and compliance mappings tuned for water. Existing licensing conversations are usually simpler than a new purchase.
The current certification deadlines have passed sector-wide, and the next recertification cycle arrives on a five-year clock. The findings from your last assessment are the working list; continuous evidence means the next certification is a printout, not a project. State-level rules are moving too, and this puts you ahead of them.
No, and you shouldn't wait for one. The program is priced for operating budgets, and pilots start small on purpose. If grant money shows up later, it accelerates the rollout instead of gating the start.
You own it. Dashboards live in your environment, history is exportable, and the audit trail shows every access. The managed service operates it; it doesn't own it.
A 30-minute working conversation, not a pitch: we walk through the scenario cards, you tell us which ones are wrong, and we both find out fast whether this fits your system. If it doesn't, you keep the scenario list anyway.
Prefer email? info@utilitycockpit.com