Utilities have invested heavily in visibility. Smart meters can report last-gasp events. Control rooms have more telemetry than ever. Yet in many organizations, the moment restoration becomes complex - nested outages, partial restorations, conflicting signals, mutual assistance, shifting priorities - execution still collapses into the same manual patterns: phone trees, spreadsheet trackers, and leaders “running the board” through individual heroics.

The uncomfortable truth is that better sensing does not automatically produce better restoration. It often produces more signals, more exceptions, and more coordination load. When the operating model is still built around static workflows and fragmented systems, increased visibility can actually increase the amount of work required to align teams on what is true, what is next, and who owns it.

This is why the outage management system conversation needs to evolve. The outage management system is essential infrastructure, but it is rarely sufficient on its own. As grid complexity rises and workforce constraints intensify, outage response is getting harder - not easier - unless the utility modernizes how the outage management system is integrated, how workflows are orchestrated, and how decisions are governed from detection to verified closure.

The paradox: more visibility, more manual work

The logic seems straightforward: more sensors should mean faster diagnosis, better crew routing, and shorter restoration times. In practice, utilities often experience the opposite during major events. Visibility expands faster than execution capacity. As the number of data sources grows, the “single version of the truth” becomes harder to maintain, especially when systems disagree or update on different cadences.

The outage management system becomes the place where conflicting evidence converges:

• AMI events vs SCADA status
• customer calls vs automated trouble tickets
• GIS connectivity models vs as-built reality
• crew updates vs actual field conditions

That conflict is not an edge case. The Electric Power Research Institute research shows that during storm activity, interfaces can be flooded with outage and restoration messages, and even differentiating communication failures from true outages becomes non-trivial. When the outage management system is not supported by a robust orchestration layer and clear exception workflows, humans become the integration fabric.

So the paradox is real: visibility improves, but the restoration operating burden shifts from “finding outages” to “coordinating evidence, decisions, and actions across a fragmented landscape.” That is the manual gap utilities feel growing.

Why outage response is getting worse

Outage response is getting worse because complexity is compounding across three fronts at the same time: grid conditions, workforce realities, and system fragmentation.

Grid variability is structural, not occasional

Severe weather is not a rare test case. It is a persistent driver of grid disruption and restoration demand. NERC’s 2025 State of Reliability Overview notes that severe weather remained responsible for the most severe outages in 2024, including major storms that produced millions of customer outages. Even when bulk system performance improves, distribution restoration remains an operational marathon, and the cadence of events compresses the time available for deliberation.

Workforce constraints reduce “coordination bandwidth”

Outage restoration has always depended on experienced operators, dispatchers, and field leaders who can interpret ambiguous signals and coordinate safely under pressure. Today, those skills are harder to staff and harder to scale. As retirements, training ramps, and contractor reliance increase, utilities often find that the limiting factor during restoration is not crew availability alone - it is the availability of qualified coordinators who can keep work moving without compromising safety.

System fragmentation increases the cost of alignment

Most utilities run a complex stack: outage management system, ADMS, SCADA, AMI, GIS, EAM, work management, crew management, customer communications, and sometimes DER platforms. Each system can be strong on its own terms, but restoration performance depends on how they operate together. When integration patterns are inconsistent or brittle, humans compensate by building parallel coordination workflows in email, spreadsheets, and calls.

This is the core reason outage response can feel like it is “getting worse” even as tools improve: operational load is shifting from execution to coordination, and coordination is being handled manually.

What an outage management system was supposed to do

A modern outage management system is intended to provide a unified operational picture and a structured execution backbone for restoration. In most utilities, the outage management system is expected to:

• ingest outage signals from multiple sources (calls, AMI, SCADA, field reports)
• predict outage locations and affected customers
• support switching and tagging workflows in coordination with safety rules
• manage crew dispatch and work order progression
• track restoration steps, ETAs, and customer communications
• provide reporting and evidence for regulatory and internal performance review

When conditions are stable, that model works reasonably well. The problem is that large events are not stable. The problem is also that an outage management system is often treated as a “system of record” rather than a “system of orchestrated execution.” In other words, it records what humans decide and do, but it does not always drive the workflows that reduce human coordination burden.

The outage management system can be a powerful anchor. But as the event landscape becomes more exception-heavy, utilities need a broader operational approach that turns restoration into managed flow, not manual scramble.

Why the outage management system still depends on manual coordination

The most common failure mode is not that the outage management system lacks features. It is that the operating model around the outage management system is not designed for high-variability, multi-system execution. The result is a reliance on humans to compensate for gaps in orchestration, decisioning, and evidence capture.

Close lessons can be seen in Haptiq’s article, Operations Orchestration: From Reactive Dispatch to Predictive Flow in Transportation. While the domain is different, the operating failure mode is the same: exceptions compound when people become the integration layer between systems. The article shows how orchestration turns early signals into routed work, policy-based decisions, and verified closure - a pattern that maps directly to outage response when restoration depends on coordinated action across tools, teams, and shifting constraints.

1) Integration is present, but interoperability is weak

Utilities often have “integrations” between AMI and the outage management system, but interoperability is more demanding than interface connectivity. EPRI’s AMI-to-OMS use case exploration highlights how difficult it can be to implement standards in a consistent and predictable way across parties, and how storm conditions can flood interfaces with outage/restoration messages.

In practice, weak interoperability produces familiar symptoms:

• duplicate or conflicting outage tickets
• delayed or missing restoration confirmations
• nested outage confusion when partial restorations occur
• manual reconciliation between system states and field reality

When this happens, operators and planners use spreadsheets because spreadsheets can reconcile ambiguity faster than disconnected systems can.

2) Exceptions are handled as “ad hoc,” not as governed workflows

Outage response is exception-driven by nature. Yet many utilities still manage exceptions through informal escalation rather than standardized, auditable workflows. Examples include:

• conflicting AMI and SCADA indications
• feeder backfeed complexity
• switching constraints
• safety-related holds
• crew access issues
• customer-critical prioritization changes

When exception handling is informal, it becomes inconsistent. When it becomes inconsistent, leaders do not trust system states, and they revert to phone calls and manual trackers.

3) Decision points are implicit rather than explicit

In a major event, restoration decisions are made continuously: which work gets priority, what can be safely switched, when mutual aid is deployed, when a restoration ETA is communicated, and when “restored” is truly verified. If those decision points are not explicit and governed, different regions and leaders apply different rules.

This creates two problems:

• speed decreases because decisions require more alignment conversations
• risk increases because evidence and rationale are inconsistent

The outage management system becomes a log of decisions, not the vehicle that standardizes them.

4) Closure is not consistently verified, so rework multiplies

The moment an outage is marked “restored” without reliable verification, the organization creates downstream cost: repeat calls, repeat dispatches, customer dissatisfaction, and internal friction. In high-volume events, even a small verification gap can cascade into significant rework.

A modern outage management system should help close the loop - but only if the workflow includes verification steps and the operating model treats closure evidence as a requirement, not a preference.

The new operational approach utilities need

Utilities do not need to replace the outage management system to modernize outage response. They need to elevate the outage management system into an orchestrated operating model that can manage high variability, reduce manual coordination load, and produce audit-ready execution evidence.

A practical way to define that shift is:

From outage management system as a record → outage management system as orchestrated execution

That shift requires four capabilities working together.

Real-time orchestration across systems and teams

The utility needs a workflow spine that can coordinate work across OMS, ADMS, AMI, GIS, EAM, and workforce tools - with clear workflow states, owners, and escalation paths. Orchestration reduces “waiting between steps,” which is one of the biggest drivers of restoration cycle time in large events.

Dynamic task routing under policy

During storm response, static routing is a liability. Dynamic routing means tasks are prioritized and routed based on operational conditions and policies: critical customers, safety constraints, feeder-level restoration strategy, crew proximity, access windows, and work-in-progress risk.

Standardized exception workflows

The goal is not to eliminate exceptions. The goal is to make exception handling predictable. That means defined exception types, defined decision rights, defined evidence requirements, and defined escalation thresholds - so humans spend time on judgment, not on chasing status.

Verification and auditability as a built-in feature

Utilities need restoration decisions to be defensible. That requires that each significant action has evidence: what triggered it, what data supported it, what approvals were obtained, and what verification confirmed closure. This is where many outage management system programs fall short - and why “manual” remains the operational default.

Where to focus modernization around the outage management system

Not every improvement needs to be a platform program. Utilities can improve outage performance by focusing on specific modernization levers that reduce coordination cost and rework.

1) Treat restoration workflows as value streams, not as departmental tasks

Outage response crosses control room operations, dispatch, field crews, customer communications, and leadership. A value-stream view identifies where handoffs create delays and where states become ambiguous. This view is the prerequisite for meaningful orchestration.

2) Build an event-to-work pipeline that is resilient under storm load

AMI-to-OMS traffic, call spikes, and restoration confirmations can overwhelm brittle integration. Utilities need resilient patterns for event ingestion, normalization, deduplication, and prioritization. EPRI’s analysis of AMI-to-OMS use cases reflects why storms create message floods and interoperability friction that must be engineered, not hoped away. 

3) Make “decisioning” a governed asset

Utilities should not rely on undocumented rules applied differently across teams. Decision logic for prioritization, escalation, and verification should be explicit, versioned, and measurable. This reduces both delay and risk, and it makes training and cross-region consistency more realistic.

4) Instrument execution telemetry, not only outcomes

Most utilities track outcomes such as restoration time and customer minutes interrupted. Modern execution requires telemetry that explains performance drivers: time from detection to dispatch, queue aging, exception cycle times, revisit rates, and verification lag. Without this, the outage management system cannot become a continuous improvement engine.

5) Standardize what “done” means

A major source of rework is inconsistent closure. “Restored” should have consistent definitions and evidence across the organization, especially for nested outages and partial restorations. When closure is standardized, restoration metrics become more trustworthy and improvement becomes possible.

High-impact workflows to modernize first

Utilities often try to improve “outage response” as a broad initiative. A more effective approach is to select specific workflows where manual coordination is clearly driving cost and delay, then build repeatable patterns.

Storm-mode mobilization and mutual aid intake

When storms are forecast, utilities need to activate a repeatable mobilization workflow: staging, crew assignment, material readiness, mutual aid coordination, and role clarity. The manual burden here is often large because it spans multiple teams and systems. Orchestrated mobilization reduces setup time and reduces confusion during escalation.

Nested outage handling and restoration verification

Nested outages - where upstream restoration does not imply downstream restoration - create ambiguity and rework if not handled with standardized logic. Utilities can reduce re-dispatch by improving verification workflows, tying AMI and field confirmation into closure, and making nested outage logic explicit.

Switching workflows and safety holds

Switching and tagging is where human judgment and safety discipline are most critical. Orchestration should not remove human oversight. It should ensure that decision rights, approvals, safety holds, and evidence capture are consistent. This is one of the best places to reduce manual coordination without reducing safety standards.

For the field side of outage response, similar operational lessons appear in How Augmented Reality Enhances Field Service Operations and Outcomes. The core takeaway is that high-variance work improves when guidance, context, and collaboration are delivered inside the workflow rather than through ad hoc calls and tribal knowledge. That principle carries into restoration when switching steps, verification, and completion evidence must be executed consistently under time pressure across mixed-experience teams.

Customer communication sequencing

Customer ETAs and updates often degrade in major events because humans cannot keep communication aligned with shifting restoration realities. A modernized approach links the outage management system to a governed communication workflow so messages are consistent, timed appropriately, and based on the best available operational truth.

How Haptiq supports modern outage operations at enterprise scale

A new operational approach requires interoperability, orchestration, and performance discipline. Haptiq supports these needs through a coherent ecosystem that can sit alongside existing utility systems without forcing a rip-and-replace.

Orion Platform Base as the orchestration and control spine

Orion Platform Base provides the execution spine outage response typically lacks - the layer that turns signals into governed workflows instead of manual coordination. In storm conditions, the operational difference comes from orchestrating work states end-to-end: triage, assignment, escalation, safety holds, verification, and closure. Orion’s value in outage response is the ability to keep teams aligned around shared workflow states and context-aware alerts, so dispatchers and supervisors spend less time reconciling “what’s true” and more time moving restoration forward with consistent control.

‍Olympus Performance to standardize KPIs and sustain improvement

Olympus Performance supports the KPI discipline that makes outage improvement repeatable rather than event-specific. Many utilities can report SAIDI/SAIFI after the fact, but struggle to manage leading indicators in real time: dispatch lag, verification lag, repeat-truck rates, exception cycle times, and aging work states. Olympus helps standardize definitions across regions and provides the performance lens to connect orchestration changes to measurable outcomes, so leaders can sustain improvement beyond a single storm season.

A pragmatic roadmap to reduce manual outage response

Utilities modernize outage response fastest when they treat it as operating model design, not a feature list.

1) Map one end-to-end restoration workflow

Choose a workflow that is currently coordination-heavy (storm mobilization, nested outages, switching holds, or verification). Map from trigger to closure. Identify where humans are compensating for system fragmentation.

2) Define decision points and evidence requirements

Make prioritization rules, escalation thresholds, and closure evidence explicit. This creates the foundation for reliable orchestration and reduces “tribal” variation across teams.

3) Orchestrate the workflow across systems

Connect systems through resilient integration patterns and implement workflow states, ownership, and exception pathways. The goal is not to automate every task; it is to reduce manual coordination load and shrink waiting time between steps.

4) Measure execution telemetry and iterate

Track cycle times between key states, exception frequencies, and rework rates. Use this telemetry to refine both workflows and decision logic, and to identify where human review adds value versus where it adds delay.

5) Scale through patterns

Once one workflow is stable, reuse the same orchestration patterns across other restoration workflows. This is how utilities reduce manual dependence systematically rather than relying on one-off improvements.

Bringing it all together

Outage response remains manual in many utilities not because the outage management system is irrelevant, but because the operating model around the outage management system has not kept pace with rising complexity. Severe weather is a persistent driver of large-scale disruption, interoperability friction increases under storm load, and workforce constraints reduce the bandwidth available for manual coordination. In that environment, the outage management system must evolve from a record of restoration activity into an orchestrated execution model that reduces waiting, standardizes exception handling, and verifies closure with defensible evidence.

Haptiq enables this transformation by integrating enterprise-grade AI frameworks with strong governance and measurable outcomes. To explore how Haptiq’s AI Business Process Optimization Solutions can become the foundation of your digital enterprise, contact us to book a demo.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What is an outage management system in a utility context?
   An outage management system is the operational platform utilities use to identify outages, estimate scope and location, coordinate restoration, and track progress from detection through closure. It typically ingests signals from customer calls, AMI, SCADA, and field reports, then supports dispatch, switching coordination, and customer communications. In major events, the outage management system becomes the coordination center for restoration decisions and status. The challenge is that many outage management system implementations still rely on manual workflows to reconcile conflicting signals and manage exceptions at scale.
2. Why does outage response still rely on spreadsheets and phone calls?
   Spreadsheets and phone calls persist when the operating model cannot reliably coordinate workflows across systems and teams during high variability. When AMI, OMS, GIS, and workforce tools disagree or update inconsistently, humans become the “interoperability layer” that reconciles truth and drives execution. Storm-scale events amplify this problem because signal volume increases and exception paths multiply. Utilities often default to manual coordination because it is the fastest way to align stakeholders when workflows and decision points are not standardized.
3. What makes outage response “worse” today even with better monitoring?
   Better monitoring increases the number of signals that must be interpreted and acted on, especially when data is noisy or conflicting. Severe weather remains a primary driver of large-scale disruption, and those events compress decision timelines while expanding operational complexity. At the same time, workforce constraints reduce the availability of experienced coordinators who can manage ambiguity. If the outage management system is not supported by orchestration and standardized exception handling, more visibility can translate into more manual work rather than faster restoration.
4. What should utilities modernize first around the outage management system?
   Utilities should start with the workflows that are most coordination-heavy and measurable: storm mobilization, nested outage handling, switching safety holds, and restoration verification. The first modernization step is to make decision points explicit - prioritization rules, escalation thresholds, and closure evidence - so execution becomes consistent across teams. Next, orchestrate these workflows across systems with clear state management and ownership. Finally, instrument execution telemetry (cycle time between states, exception cycle times, rework rates) so improvement becomes repeatable rather than event-specific.

‍