OMS Selection — Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro
A severe 2013 ice storm exposed limitations in Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro's paper-based outage processes and customer communications. The utility then defined outage-management requirements across several internal functions before moving into a structured OMS evaluation that included written proposals, scripted demonstrations and peer-utility site visits.
The evaluation committee ultimately recommended ACS PRISM. The participant account states that the selected solution was not the lowest bid but was judged the lowest overall risk when requirements fit, experience, references, service capability, future functionality and cost were considered together.
-
Utility: Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro
Utility type: Municipal / local distribution company
Technology / purchase: Outage Management System (OMS)
Buying motion: New capability / first deployment
Stages visible in the record: Problem Definition → Solution Exploration → Vendor Evaluation → Purchase Decision
Stakeholders explicitly visible: Control Room, Customer Service, Engineering, IT, Operations, OMS evaluation committee
Evidence / information explicitly mentioned: User stories; detailed requirements; RFP compliance responses; structured scoring; scripted vendor demonstrations; peer-utility site visits / references
Outcome: ACS PRISM unanimously recommended by the OMS evaluation committee
Source basis: Detailed participant account hosted by Electric Energy Online
What triggered the purchase
The 2013 ice storm exposed weaknesses in the utility's existing outage-management process, including reliance on paper-based processes and shortcomings in customer communication during the event.
That experience became the starting point for defining a more capable outage-management approach.
How the utility defined what it needed
Before formal vendor evaluation, Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro brought together stakeholders from Control Room, Customer Service, Engineering, IT and Operations.
Those groups developed user stories describing how a future OMS needed to support their work. The user stories were expanded into detailed requirements, and those requirements later became part of the compliance structure in the RFP.
How vendors or options were evaluated
After proposals were received, responses were consolidated into a master evaluation report and scored by the OMS evaluation committee.
Four vendors then received a scripted demonstration and were scored on their OMS demonstrations. Two vendors advanced. The remaining two vendors underwent site-visit reference checks with peer utilities.
The final assessment considered price together with requirements fit, vendor and product experience, references, service capability, usability, future automation / distribution-management needs and total cost or overall risk.
The committee unanimously recommended ACS PRISM. The participant account states that the recommended system was not the lowest bid but was judged the lowest overall risk. It also links future self-healing and distribution-management capability to the choice.
Evidence and information explicitly mentioned
User stories and requirements
Cross-functional stakeholders developed user stories that were expanded into detailed OMS requirements. Those requirements later became part of the RFP compliance structure, connecting internal operating needs to the criteria vendors were asked to address.
Written evaluation and scripted demonstrations
Vendor responses were evaluated against the requirements and consolidated into a master report. Four vendors then completed scripted demonstrations that were scored by the committee, after which two vendors remained.
Peer-utility site visits and references
The utility conducted site-visit reference checks for the two remaining vendors. Peer experience was therefore an explicit part of the finalist evaluation; the account does not establish that references alone determined the recommendation.
Outcome
The OMS evaluation committee unanimously recommended ACS PRISM.
The documented account emphasizes that this was not the lowest-priced bid. The recommendation reflected a broader assessment that included requirements fit, experience, references, service capability, future functionality, total cost and overall risk.
Why this case matters for vendors
Requirements were defined before formal vendor comparison
The utility's internal stakeholders developed user stories and detailed requirements before comparative evaluation. This case therefore documents commercially relevant buying activity before vendor scoring and demonstrations began.
The evaluation used several forms of evidence as the field narrowed
Written compliance responses, scored demonstrations and peer site visits all appear in the documented sequence. The case does not establish that any one format caused the selection, but it shows how the utility combined written, interactive and peer evidence before recommending a solution on broader risk and capability criteria rather than price alone.
-
Kitchener-Wilmot Hydro OMS participant account
Host: Electric Energy Online
Public link: https://electricenergyonline.com/energy/magazine/903/article/hit_ban.php?no=17509&p=%2FEE_magazine_article.phpSource provenance: Detailed participant account, not a formal procurement record. The NewGrowth evidence database separately records explicit support for the stakeholder user-story / requirements process, the RFP compliance and evaluation structure, the scripted demonstrations and the peer site-visit reference checks.
Evidence limitations: The source provides a strong chronology of requirements development and evaluation but does not expose every internal discussion or establish which individual piece of evidence was decisive for each stakeholder.
Related Buying Cases
NEW CASES + ANALYSIS
Get new Utility Buying Cases when they’re published, plus analysis of how utilities buy. Subscribe to CONDUCTOR below
