F U E L I N G B E T T E R D
Achieve Predictable Return on
Investment with an End-to-End
Tank Monitoring Solution
Oscar Rodriguez, Chief Financial Officer
World Telemetry, Inc.
Abstract
Corporate managers responsible for multiple fuel
tank locations need remote technology applica-
tions to maximize their information use and
1
increase the reach of their resources. Success
when planning new remote technology projects
can be measured in terms of increased profitabili-
ty or ROI if the planners adequately address the
build vs. buy decisions required when choosing
the necessary hardware, software, deployment
and integration strategy. In-house or assembled
solutions from different hardware and software
page vendors contain too many variables to accurately
predict the ROI. The cost of research and devel-
opment, needed skill sets and specialized labor
are already built into the cost of a seamless, inte-
grated approach from a single-source vendor with
an end-to-end solution, thus assuring confidence
in ROI predictions.
Introduction
Many tank operators limit themselves to site-spe-
cific gauging systems for tank level and fuel mon-
itoring information. Because of this, crucial oper-
ational information either remains at the site level
or requires effort by personnel to make it avail-
able at a central location where purchasing and
dispatch decisions are made. Managers responsi-
ble for operations, logistics and environmental
risk mitigation often lack the information they
need to make the best
E C I S I O N S
W H I T E P A P E R
decisions. A remote tank monitoring system can
meet this need. Implementing a remote monitor-
ing system is a complex and difficult task. To
accurately predict return on investment for such
an endeavor, planners must eliminate as much
cost uncertainty as possible. The best way to
achieve this goal is by purchasing an end-to-end
solution from a single provider.
Quantify the ROI
Multiple business goals such as precise inventory
control, cost reduction and business growth sup-
port result in a more complicated ROI prediction.
Complexity is also affected by the types of assets
(ASTs, USTs, cardlock facilities) and the type of
tank data needed (inventory level, product tem-
perature, delivery notification, overfill and leak
detection, etc.) Accurate prediction of return on
investment depends on a high level of knowledge
concerning the needs of the business and the
available options for achieving these needs.
The challenge, when estimating ROI on a remote
tank monitoring project, is to accurately predict
hardware, deployment, software and integration
costs. An end-to-end solution, which provides an
off-the-shelf product with an up-front cost esti-
mation is the best approach for removing cost
uncertainty in these areas.
 F U E L I N G B E T T E
Compare Build vs. Buy Decision
Elements
Planners can choose to “build” their own remote
tank monitoring solution that utilizes multiple
vendors, products and services. A more effective
and less complicated alternative is for project
managers to “buy” an end-to-end solution from a
single source, which combines all necessary com-
ponents into a complete off-the-shelf outcome.
Hardware/Network
When deciding on hardware requirements for
a remote tank monitoring solution, managers
should keep in mind the main functions of
2
their core business. These could include meas-
uring and protecting assets in a retail situation,
operating a truck distribution fleet or storing
chemicals. The functions of the business
impact the level of required information,
which determines hardware requirements nec-
essary to the system. Planners are faced with a
number of questions concerning hardware:
page
Which hardware provides the needed informa-
tion? What hardware is compatible with multi-
ple tank types? Must the hardware be intrinsi-
cally safe in the needed applications? What
certification standards must hardware meet?
What back-up systems are needed? Mere
knowledge of available hardware capability is
usually insufficient when predicting ROI.
Comparing hardware integrity to required tank
asset functionality is a necessary component of
ROI prediction and requires specialized experi-
ence to assure accuracy. A single-source vendor
offering an end-to-end solution can provide a
proven hardware network that takes data and
asset needs into consideration and provides a
reliable estimation of the necessary network
costs.
R D E C I S I O N S
Deployment
Once functionality and features are finalized,
deployment of the new application is the next
element in the actual ROI cost determination.
If planners choose the “build” method, they
must, at this point, hire an additional vendor
to perform physical installation of the pur-
chased hardware. The “buy” approach, howev-
er, requires the original vendor to perform the
deployment as part of the purchase agreement.
An end-to-end provider likely maintains a
nation-wide network of certified installers.
This makes the deployment fast and easy,
while maintaining high quality standards.
Because the cost of this installation is included
in the original purchase agreement, the result
is a cost that is pre-determined, allowing for an
easily predicted ROI.
Software
The “build vs. buy” decision process also
includes evaluating the needed software.
Planners could choose to estimate associated
time and labor costs for in-house software
development. Many in-house information
technology (IT) specialists, however, are not
immersed in tank asset information require-
ments, or the intricacies of its features.
Developing new software is labor intensive,
involving specialized skills in developing sys-
tem architecture, business logic rules, user
management, access control and security,
functional enhancements and system mainte-
nance. These are extremely complex tasks,
and, when taken on as an in-house project
orcontracted out to a third-party vendor, can
contribute to ROI uncertainty.
 F U E L I N G B E T
For quantifiable ROI predictions, the software
requirements must address four major
components:
• Data collection (including self-diagnos-
tics, automated network health reporting,
redundant data collection networks and
other forward features)
• Network devices (remotely configurable
and upgradeable, FCC certified, etc.)
• Web application (centralized enterprise
views, customizable structure, automated
reporting engines, delivery, dispatch noti-
fications, tank inventories)
• Business intelligence (consumption mod-
3
eling, interactive charting and trending,
as well as an expanded set of analysis
routines and algorithms for future busi-
ness planning)
Project planners should look for answers
to such questions as: Can the software
provide reliable optimal tank level algo-
rithms? Can it provide needed forecast-
page
ing information for business planning?
A single-source vendor can affirmatively
answer software queries for precise
ROI estimation since the software has
already been developed, deployed and
has a proven track record in remote tank
management.
Integration
Cost of integration is another common
pitfall when determining ROI on a new
remote technology implementation.
Companies may allow their in-house IT
personnel to take on the task of integra-
tion in the mistaken belief that this is the
easy part of a remote tank monitoring
T E R D E C I S I O N S
project. Underestimation of this integra-
tion effort can derail all prior decision
making.
For the collected field data to be avail-
able for use, it needs to be fed to the
appropriate operating and management
software applications and then integrated
with existing legacy or enterprise-wide
systems. The challenges and costs associ-
ated with combining direct, electronic
data feeds from tank monitoring equip-
ment to applications and systems from
different vendors negatively effect ROI
determinations, as well as prevent the
functionality of data in a secure, coordi-
nated and integrated fashion.
Companies who commit to an in-house data
integration effort will see costs mount as mul-
tiple outside consultants and contractors are
brought in to customize the data streams so
that they can be effectively used. No matter
how sophisticated the purchased software, it is
useless if not supported by the proper configu-
ration of the predominant integrating structure.
Conclusion
When examining all costs associated with the
hardware, software, deployment and integration
that these projects require, planners need to avoid
as much uncertainty as possible to maintain prof-
itability and receive the full benefits of their new,
high-value technology system. Considering the
complexities and uncertainties involved when
deploying fuel tank monitoring technology, an
end-to-end solution from a single provider is the
most reliable way to predictably match expected
ROI with actual ROI.