From Interpretation to Decision: Turning Systems Understanding into Sustainable NRW Improvement

Published: August 26, 2026  |  Author: Dr. David Tsetse

Introduction

Persistent Non-Revenue Water (NRW) demands more than repeated technical responses. This article builds on previous publications reframing NRW as a system outcome in Understanding Non-Revenue Water as a Governance System and Trust Challenge, showing that water losses reflect interactions among infrastructure, governance, information, finance, institutions, and behavior. The subsequent stakeholder analysis demonstrated that utilities, customers, regulators, local governments, contractors, and communities influence NRW through their decisions, behaviors, and relationships. Sensing the NRW system and identifying leverage points deepened the understanding of NRW and shifted attention from isolated failures to the conditions and relationships sustaining them. Subsequent analyses examined governance, trust and the utility–customer relationship, and the root conditions shaping NRW outcomes. Together, the interpretation of findings revealed that underlying conditions shape performance, performance shapes relationships, relationships influence behavior, and behavior ultimately affects NRW outcomes. The task now is to use these insights to decide how to strengthen the NRW system through better connection, accountability, stakeholder engagement, and continuous learning.

Aligning the System Around Shared NRW Outcomes (Connecting)

NRW cuts across multiple functions and institutions, but responses are often fragmented. Technical teams manage leaks and pressure, commercial teams oversee metering, billing, and revenue, customer-service teams receive complaints and service information, finance allocates resources, and regulators, governments, contractors, customers, and communities influence the wider system. Sustainable NRW reduction requires these actors to work toward shared outcomes, with information flowing quickly to those responsible for action. Customer complaints and leak reports should trigger operational responses, field evidence should inform commercial and financial decisions, and resources should be directed toward agreed NRW priorities. Regulators should base oversight on credible utility information, governments should support agreed priorities, contractors should be accountable for performance requirements, and customers should have clear channels to report problems and receive responses. The goal is to align information with decisions, decisions with responsible actors, and resources with shared NRW priorities, in order to turn fragmented activities into coordinated system action.

Making Responsibility Visible and Actionable (Accounting)

Clear responsibility is essential for improving NRW because coordinated action alone will not produce results if no one is clearly responsible for performance. Utility leaders should define ownership across technical, commercial, customer-service, and financial functions, translating NRW targets into measurable responsibilities for leak response, meter accuracy, billing integrity, complaint resolution, revenue performance, and other critical outcomes. Progress should be regularly reviewed, and agreed actions should be tracked through completion. Regulators should use accurate and timely information to identify performance gaps and require corrective action, while local governments and political actors should reinforce agreed responsibilities rather than introduce competing priorities. Contractors and service providers should also work to clearly defined standards for quality, reliability, and timeliness, with corrective action when expectations are not met. The goal is to establish clear ownership, measure performance, review results, and close gaps, so that shared responsibility translates into consistent action and measurable NRW improvement.

Building Trust into Stakeholder Action (Engaging)

NRW is shaped not only by what utilities do but also by how customers and other stakeholders respond. Customers influence performance through bill payment, leak reporting, meter inspections, and compliance with service requirements, while weak trust can contribute to delayed payments, illegal connections, resistance to inspections, and reduced cooperation. As explored in The Trust Side of NRW, utilities can strengthen this relationship by acknowledging complaints and leak reports, clearly explaining billing and service decisions, communicating actions taken, and demonstrating consistent follow-through. Customers should report problems, permit legitimate inspections, meet service and payment obligations, and use established channels to raise concerns, while communities and civil society can strengthen awareness, participation, and social accountability. Regulators and local governments should reinforce fair service practices and ensure stakeholder concerns can meaningfully inform decisions. The goal is to listen carefully, communicate clearly, and follow through on actions to build trust, engagement, and behaviors that support sustainable NRW reduction.

Turning Evidence into Better Decisions (Learning)

NRW systems continuously generate valuable evidence through operational performance, customer interactions, regulatory reporting, maintenance activities, and stakeholder experience, but this information has little value if it remains isolated or does not influence future decisions. Utility leaders and operational teams should compare expected and actual results, investigate recurring problems, and combine technical, commercial, financial, and customer information to understand why interventions succeed or fail. Repeated leaks, unresolved complaints, inaccurate meters, billing problems, or persistent revenue losses should trigger deeper investigation rather than repetition of the same response. Regulators should use performance reporting to identify recurring system weaknesses as well as assess compliance, while contractors and service providers should use lessons from technical failures to improve maintenance, procurement, and infrastructure decisions. Customer, community, and civil society feedback should also be considered because it can reveal problems that operational data may miss. The goal is to capture evidence, identify patterns, share insights, and use what the system reveals to make the next decision better-turning information and experience into continuous improvement.

Application

Connecting, Accounting, Engaging, and Learning should work together as one set of decisions, not as four separate activities. Connection without accountability can bring people together without clear responsibility. Accountability without engagement can overlook the relationships and behaviors that affect performance. Engagement without learning can produce useful information that never improves decisions. Learning without connection can leave valuable evidence trapped within individual teams or institutions.

Apply the four decisions to a specific NRW outcome, such as leak response, bring together the teams and external factors involved, assign clear responsibilities and response expectations, link customer reports directly to operational action, monitor results, and investigate repeated delays. If commercial losses persist, bring together information from metering, billing, customer service, and enforcement; assign responsibility for identified gaps; involve affected customers and communities; and use the evidence gathered to improve future action.

Approach the issue by defining the outcome, connecting the actors and information, accounting for responsibilities and results, engaging affected and interested parties who influence the outcome, and applying learnings from the results to adjust the system as per the SIDA Improvement Cycle. Improvement should be treated as a continuous process allowing strategies, responsibilities, and actions to be strengthened based on system condition and interpretation.

In conclusion, it is advisable to start with one persistent NRW outcome, align the people and resources that influence it, establish clear ownership, and measure the results. Use evidence from operations, customers, and stakeholders to determine what is working and adjust what is not. Sustainable NRW reduction will come from making better decisions about the conditions that drive performance and stop repeating the same actions that produce the same results.

Other Resources

Chea, E. (2026). The Real NRW Challenge: Why Non-Revenue Water is a Governance System Challenge. The SiBI Review, Issue 01. Read Article

Chea, E. (2026). The Real NRW Challenge: How Stakeholders Shape Non-Revenue Water. Read Article

Chea, E. (2026). Sensing: The First Step in Improving Non-Revenue Water Systems. Read Article

Chea, E. (2026). Finding the Leverage Points: Why Non-Revenue Water Persists as a System Challenge. Read Article

Chea, E. (2026). Why NRW Persists: A Governance Assessment of Non-Revenue Water as a System Outcome. Read Article

Chea, E. (2026). The Trust Side of NRW: Understanding the Utility–Customer Relationships Through a Public Trust Lens. Read Article

Chea, E. (2026). The Root Causes of NRW: Understanding How Root Conditions, Behaviors and Visible Symptoms. Read Article

Chea, E. (2026). Interpreting NRW: Understanding the Underlying Conditions, Performance, Behavior and Outcomes. Read Article

Tsetse, D. (2026, February 12). From PDCA to SIDA- A new way to lead continuous improvement. LinkedIn. Read Article

SiBI Institute Extern, PhD Candidate, Social Marketing, Strathmore University Business School

Mentor: David Tsetse, Ph.D., Founder and President I SiBI Institute

Share. Write a Comment. Stay Connected.

Visit www.smallinsightbigimpact.com to explore resources and services.

For inquiries, write to info@smallinsightbigimpact.com