AMI Data Architecture: Ensure Trusted Meter Data from Day One

I’ve worked with utility teams across Australia and New Zealand for over a decade now, and I can tell you this:

When it comes to AMI Data Services, most of the real pain doesn’t show up until go-live.

Meters are deployed. MDMS is up and running. The dashboard looks good.

But soon after, the questions start rolling in:

“Why aren’t we getting voltage data fast enough?”
“Why can’t the OMS trust what’s coming from the MDMS?”
“Why is this taking so long to scale?”

I’ve seen this happen too many times. Not because utilities don’t plan. Not because vendors aren’t capable. But because the architecture that holds everything together is often the last thing that gets real ownership.

The Real Problem? It’s Not the Technology. It’s the Timing.

By the time integration work begins, most of the key decisions are already locked in. Vendors have scoped their work. Delivery is underway. And the assumption is: "We’ll plug it all together later."

Except “later” always comes with surprises.

Like learning that your DERMS vendor and AMI platform interpret IEEE 2030.5 differently. Or that OMS workflows depend on event tagging no one planned for. Or that your SCADA system can’t consume the data format the MDMS is producing.

This is where things start to slow down. Where internal teams spend months firefighting integration issues they didn’t see coming.

And it’s also where most of the cost overruns, delays, and frustration begin.

According to Energy Networks Australia, over 60% of DNSPs cite data integration as a major challenge in grid modernisation and DER enablement. The infrastructure is there, but the flow of insight isn’t.

What Utility Teams Actually Want From Integration Support

In our experience, when utilities bring in an external integration partner, they’re not asking for more hands on keyboards.

They’re asking for clarity.

They want someone to look across all the systems and say:

“Here’s where the data needs to move, how it should be structured, and what could go wrong.”

They want:

• A clear architecture that shows the full data journey from meter to market

• A shared understanding of who owns what

• Protocol alignment before testing starts

• Faster identification of blockers

• Fewer late-stage surprises

Because the truth is, most utility teams are doing integration. But they’re doing it with late discovery, growing pressure, and unclear ownership.

The Integration Alignment Sprint: How We Help

That’s exactly why we built the Integration Alignment Sprint.

It’s a focused, 4-week engagement where we:

• Map your end-to-end AMI dataflow (including OMS, DERMS, ADMS, SCADA, market)

• Align protocol usage across vendors (OCPP, CIM, IEEE 2030.5, etc.)

• Surface misalignments before they hit delivery

• Define ownership across internal and vendor teams

No fluff. Just focused clarity on how your AMI architecture should actually work, and what’s needed to make it real.

It’s the architecture you’ll wish you had from the beginning.
We just make sure you get it before it’s too late.

Final Thought: What Does Support Look Like For You?

So here’s a genuine question I like to ask when we meet utility leads:

What does useful integration support look like for you right now?
Not in theory. Not on a slide. But in the middle of your current program.

If the answer is clarity, speed, and fewer fire drills during rollout,
then maybe it’s time we talk.

Visit the Integration Alignment Sprint page and let’s help your grid program move faster, with fewer surprises.