30-50%

How much utilities typically underestimate their data cleanup effort
A budget gets set for the migration. Rarely for the data work that has to happen before it.

THE SHIFT

Two networks, two standards

The Geometric Network modeled how your network looked on a map. Edge snapping, auto-created junctions, unknown materials, loose topology: none of it stopped you from getting the model built.

The Utility Network models how your network operates. Every feature needs an exact vertex. Every junction needs an explicit asset type. Materials drive connectivity rules instead of symbology. Topology gets enforced, not suggested. Data that passed for years under the old standard gets flagged, rejected, or silently wrong under the new one.

What Geometric Network Lets You Get Away With

Edge Snapping
Devices sitting close to a line without sharing a vertex still registered as connected.

Auto-Created Junctions
Split points and connections got created for you. Nobody modeled them by hand.

Unknown Materials
Material values were mainly symbology. Connectivity rules never depended on them.

Loose Topology
Rules existed but bent easily. Invalid connections often went unnoticed for years.

What Utility Network Demands

Vertex-Level Connectivity
Features must share an exact vertex. There is no snapping tolerance..

Explicit Junctions and Devices
Every split, tap, and connection needs a real feature with a real asset type.

Material-Driven Logic
Materials drive asset type mapping and connectivity rules directly, not only how the map looks.

Strict Topology Enforcement
Plastic can’t connect to steel without a transition fitting. Violations get flagged, not tolerated.

THE DIAGNOSIS

Three problem categories that stall migrations

Every data issue we see during a Utility Network migration falls into one of three categories. The category decides the timeline.

01

Existing Asset Information

Your GIS data doesn’t match what’s in the field. Missing or inaccurate attribution, geometry problems, connectivity gaps, and assets that exist in historical records but never made it into GIS. Without accurate materials and geometry, the Utility Network can’t enforce connectivity rules or run a reliable trace.

A gas utility found 8,000 service taps that existed only in paper records. Without those taps modeled, the utility couldn’t trace from main to customer or run an accurate service territory analysis.

02

Business Process and System Integration

Data managed across GIS, work management, and billing systems doesn’t align. Service hierarchies break between premise, service point, and meter. Records conflict or duplicate across systems built long before anyone planned for them to talk to each other.

An electric utility’s GIS showed transformers, but service point and meter data lived in a separate billing system with no integration. After migration, operations couldn’t trace from a transformer to affected customers during an outage.

03

Post-Migration Data Reality

Known issues get carried into go-live because fixing everything before migration isn’t realistic. Relaxing topology rules to let bad data through creates dirty areas, and the Utility Network’s branched versioning model lets those errors compound with every edit.

A water utility migrated with known connectivity issues across 15 percent of its network. Relaxed rules let the migration complete. Post-launch, those areas showed constant dirty area flags, and editors began avoiding them altogether.

Know which category you’re dealing with
before you build the migration timeline.

GET THE GUIDE

Get the Data Strategy Guide

Eighteen pages on which data issues block your Utility Network migration, which ones are safe to defer, and how to budget for the work most utilities underestimate by 30 to 50 percent.

  • ✓The full data cleanup timing matrix, issue by issue
  • ✓The critical path decision framework
  • ✓Design around real workflows, not ideal ones
  • ✓Real utility examples for every problem category
  • ✓What drives your cleanup timeline and cost

Download your free copy