In the daily management of water resources, formulating annual, monthly, or phased water use plans is only the first step.
Once the execution phase truly begins, managers need to continuously answer several questions:
- How much water has actually been used currently?
- To what extent has the plan indicator been completed?
- Which regions, units, or water use objects have a significantly fast pace of water usage?
- For objects that have already exceeded the plan, has there been subsequent rectification or a return to the plan control range?
If these questions can only be discovered through phased summaries, manual verification, or post-event reports, then even if a water use plan has been formulated, it is difficult to timely grasp deviations that occur during the execution process.
Therefore, planned water use management cannot stop at "plan issuance"; it further needs to establish a management mechanism of:
Continuous comparison of plan indicators and actual water use, timely identification of anomalies, and continuous tracking of key objects.
Centered around this need, the River and Canal Diversion Over-Limit Warning Function links capabilities such as plan execution analysis, over-plan judgment, hierarchical management, key object tracking, map warning, and scrolling prompts.
This allows managers to gradually locate specific abnormal water use objects from the overall plan execution situation and continuously understand subsequent changes.
Why is Continuous Execution Analysis Needed When We Have Plan Indicators?
In the actual management process, the plan indicator itself is just a control target.
Only by comparing it with continuously generated actual water use data can the current execution status be judged.
The system summarizes planned water use indicators and actual water consumption according to the year, month, or specific management cycle, and further calculates:
- Plan completion rate;
- Usage amount exceeding the plan, etc.
These data first form a unified basis for subsequent warning judgments.
For example, a water use object's annual plan indicator might seem to have a large margin, but if the current time is just the middle of the year and the actual water consumption has already approached the annual plan, then from the perspective of execution progress, it is already worthy of attention.
Therefore, plan execution analysis focuses not just on:
"Whether the plan is ultimately exceeded."
But also on:
"Whether the current water use progress is deviating from plan control requirements."
The front-end warning dashboard will centrally display objects where actual water use has exceeded plan indicators. Managers can view the plan execution situation according to regions, water use units, and their own management scope, further finding specific objects with fast water use progress from the overall indicators.
1. How is the Over-Plan Warning Determined?
Displaying actual water consumption is not enough.
For the warning to be truly usable for business management, it is necessary to clarify:
Under what circumstances does it count as over-plan? Based on what rules are warnings generated?
The system will continuously compare and judge actual water use data in combination with the plan cycle, plan indicators, and warning thresholds.
When the actual water consumption within the statistical cycle exceeds the corresponding plan indicator, the system generates an over-plan water use warning and records:
- The quantity exceeded;
- The percentage exceeded.
In this way, the warning information is not just a simple "abnormal" status but further explains:
- How much has actually been used currently;
- How much it exceeds the plan;
- How large the degree of excess is.
For managers, this information also provides a more specific basis for subsequent judgments on the severity of the problem and determining the priority of attention.
Why the Warning was Generated: The Rules Themselves Need to be Viewable
If the warning system only tells staff: "This object is over-plan,"
but cannot explain the judgment basis, doubts are still likely to arise in actual business use.
Therefore, managers can enter specific rule details through "Rule View" to verify:
- Plan cycle;
- Warning threshold;
- Judgment conditions;
- Applicable objects.
In this way, every over-plan warning can be further traced back to the corresponding business judgment basis.
This is especially important for water resource management scenarios.
Because different regions, different objects, and different management cycles may adopt different plan indicators and management requirements.
A truly usable warning is not just "the system judging an anomaly" but also needs to be able to answer:
Why was it judged as abnormal?
2. After Discovering Over-Plan, Locate Specific Objects from the Overall Situation
When the management scope expands, there may be multiple regions, management units, and water use objects at one time.
If all warnings are concentrated and stacked in a single list, managers still need to spend a lot of time finding the objects they are responsible for.
Therefore, the system supports viewing hierarchically according to:
Administrative Region → Management Unit → Water Use Object
Managers can first grasp the overall plan execution situation, then gradually locate specific water use subjects, and prioritize viewing warning information within their own scope of responsibility.
In the specific management process, focus can be placed on:
- Objects with a large quantity over-plan;
- Objects with a high percentage over-plan;
- Objects with continuous anomalies.
This transforms the warning from simple "abnormal information display" into a way of organizing information according to management hierarchy and problem severity, allowing limited regulatory energy to be prioritized for objects that are more worthy of attention.
3. One-Time Over-Plan and Continuous Over-Plan Need to be Treated Differently
Not all over-plan situations imply the same problem.
An object might have a one-time excess due to short-term business fluctuations in a certain stage; or it might maintain a high water use level for multiple consecutive cycles, forming a continuous over-plan.
The management methods corresponding to these two situations are usually not exactly the same.
Therefore, for objects that need continuous attention, the system will retain their plan indicators and actual water use situation on the detail page, forming a continuous tracking record for key objects.
By continuously viewing the water use trend of the same object, one can further distinguish between:
- One-time fluctuation
- Continuous over-plan
On this basis, managers can take measures such as reminders, verification, or rectification in combination with the actual business situation.
This is also the key to the warning capability moving from "discovering a single anomaly" to "observing changes over a period of time."
After Rectification, the Warning Cannot Simply Disappear
After an over-plan warning is generated, the subsequent status also needs to be managed.
If the water use object completes rectification through the business system, or returns to the plan control range with subsequent water use changes, the system will update the corresponding warning status.
However, the original warning record will not be directly deleted but will continue to be retained for subsequent queries.
In this way, the entire process can not only see:
"Which objects are currently over-plan."
But can further retain:
"Which objects had over-plan previously, and how they changed later."
For key water use objects that need continuous tracking, historical warning traces can also provide more complete process information for subsequent analysis.
4. Where are the Water Use Problems? Further View Regional Distribution Through Maps
For water use objects that have been associated with spatial locations, simply viewing data tables cannot fully reflect the spatial distribution of problems.
Therefore, the system can further mark the plan execution status of water use objects on the map.
Through different colors or icons, it can distinguish between:
- Objects approaching the limit;
- Objects that have already exceeded the plan.
Managers can thus view from a spatial dimension:
- In which regions are over-plan objects relatively concentrated;
- Which locations have already shown anomalies;
- Which regions are currently in a state of approaching the limit.
For businesses with obvious spatial attributes, such as river and canal diversion and water resource scheduling, combining indicator status with geographical location can allow abnormal objects originally scattered in lists to further form a regionalized understanding.
5. The Dashboard Not Only Displays Statistical Results but Also Timely Prompts New Anomalies
Smart water conservancy dashboards usually undertake the role of duty monitoring and viewing the overall situation.
If anomalies only exist in a certain list or detail page, duty personnel still need to actively enter the corresponding module to discover them.
Therefore, a water use warning prompt bar is set at the bottom of the dashboard.
The system generates brief prompt information based on:
- Warning objects;
- Plan cycles;
- Over-plan situations; And displays them via scrolling.
More importantly, the scrolling prompt is not an independent information display area but remains synchronized with:
- Statistical data;
- Object lists;
- Map status.
In this way, while viewing the overall water use situation, duty personnel can simultaneously pay attention to newly emerging over-plan problems, as well as key objects that have not yet completed disposal.
From One Warning to a Complete Planned Water Use Management Process
Linking these capabilities together again, one over-plan water use warning actually goes through such a process:
Establish Plan Indicators → Continuously Summarize Actual Water Use → Continuously Compare According to Rules → Generate Over-Plan Warning → Hierarchical Location → Continuous Tracking of Key Objects → Synchronized Display on Map and Dashboard → Update Status After Rectification or Recovery
In this way, the warning is no longer just a red prompt in the system but further enters the process of plan execution analysis, anomaly judgment, object location, and subsequent tracking.
Summary: Moving Further from "Plan Issuance" to "Traceable Execution Process"
The focus of water resource plan management is not just to formulate a water use indicator at the beginning of the year or the start of a cycle.
More importantly, during the plan execution process, one must continuously know:
- How much was actually used;
- To what extent the plan is being executed;
- Which objects are approaching or have exceeded control requirements;
- Where the problem occurred;
- Whether the anomaly is a one-time fluctuation or persists;
- Whether the status has changed after rectification.
The River and Canal Diversion Over-Limit Warning Function revolves around this process.
It links plan execution analysis, over-plan rule judgment, hierarchical management, key object tracking, map warning, scrolling prompts, and warning status updates with historical traces, extending planned water use management from static indicators to the continuous execution process.
For smart water conservancy construction, the value of such capabilities does not lie in simply adding a form of alarm.
Instead, it allows the originally scattered plans, actual water use, judgment rules, abnormal objects, and disposal statuses to form a relatively continuous management chain.
Moving from "discovering how much water has been used" to "timely discovering which objects deviate from the plan and continuously tracking subsequent changes" is also a basic capability for the extension of water resource management towards refined, process-oriented control.
Top comments (0)