EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF A.1.2 Process to Develop LCNF Project Ideas (Q1.3.2) Questions: Please outline the processes you have used to develop the LCNF project ideas? A.1.2.1 Ideas Generation Stakeholder engagement was mentioned by three DNOs as a part of their idea generation process; to identify opportunities, areas in which to innovate or project ideas. Another of the respondents generates a “long list” of project concepts – these are either generated internally or from vendors (including a number of SMEs). In 2016 half of the “long list” (12 ideas) consisted of ideas internally generated, and half from other vendors – including 3 from an industry consortia and 1 from a SME. One of the DNOs listed some of their sources of project ideas – emails sent directly to individuals or to the general innovation email account, calls for ideas via the normal tendering process and ideas that previous collaborators approach with. Another respondent’s approach to the initial idea stage is to generate a list of areas in which they would like to innovate – this comes from stakeholders, bottom-up internal viewpoints and a top-down executive viewpoint. It is ensured ideas are collected from many sources. A.1.2.2 Selection of Projects The DNOs mentioned a number of factors that are considered when selecting projects, the main one as mentioned by three respondents was that the projects are aligned with the company’s intended direction/business aim’s and innovation strategy. Various other factors were mentioned by one of these respondents: • learning and outputs from existing project portfolio; • learning and outputs from projects in other sectors and from other DNOs; • business needs and gap analysis; • stakeholder needs and requirements; • avoidance of duplication with previous projects; • need for innovation funding and compliance with governance arrangements; • timeliness of the solution in relation to the challenges the industry and our stakeholders face; • risk and opportunity assessment; • replicability and relevance of the solution to other license holders; • technical readiness; • value assessment; and • prospective business case (in the widest sense). PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 116
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF A.1.3 Parties Approaching with Project Ideas (Q1.3.3) Questions: Please provide details (to the extent possible) of companies and contacts who may have approached you with ideas for LCNF projects, but with whom you did not work? If possible can you explain why you chose not to go ahead with their ideas? A.1.3.1 Reasons for Rejection The main reasons, as provided by more than one respondent, behind network operators declining project ideas were found to be: • to avoid duplication of similar projects taken on by other DNOs, as said by three respondents; • the project would not result in enough benefits, to the DNO or their customers, as said by two respondents; • projects not meeting fund criteria, as said by two respondents; and • a lack of confidence in the external party that approached with the idea – in their ability to be able to support the roll out of the solution or deliver on-time/to-budget. Other reasons, each proffered by only an individual respondent, were: • the ethos of the external party and of the DNO were incompatible; • the project ideas did not fit into the portfolio of the DNO, avoiding internal duplication; • the proposed ideas are under-developed, they will only work with parties to develop ideas like that if it is a very strong case from the outset or they have a good track record; • the timing is incompatible – the skilled resources required from the DNO are already committed; • technology readiness level - the project put forward was not at a high enough TRL to be a LCNF project; and • the level of risk is unacceptably high. A.1.3.2 Companies and Contacts that Approached Some respondents provided the names of the organisations or details of the projects that they rejected, although some did not, citing Intellectual Property as the reason for not sharing. Some examples of the reasons for rejecting proposals from third party organisations include projects that: • were too similar to one undertaken by another DNO; • required elements with high capital or upfront costs; • were of too small a scale to be cost effective; • required overly complex data requirement; • would involve premature replacement of existing assets; PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 117
Page 1 and 2:
AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 119: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
Page 225 and 226:
Page 227 and 228:
Page 229 and 230:
Page 231 and 232:
Page 233 and 234:
Page 235 and 236:
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Page 245 and 246:
Page 247 and 248:
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Page 261 and 262:
Page 263 and 264:
Page 265 and 266:
Page 267 and 268:
Page 269 and 270:
Page 271 and 272:
Page 273 and 274:
Page 275 and 276:
Page 277 and 278:
Page 279 and 280:
Page 281 and 282:
Page 283 and 284:
Page 285 and 286:
Page 287 and 288:
Page 289 and 290:
Page 291 and 292:
Page 293 and 294:
Page 295 and 296:
Page 297 and 298:
Page 299 and 300:
Page 301 and 302:
Page 303 and 304:
Page 305 and 306:
Page 307 and 308:
Page 309 and 310:
Page 311 and 312:
Page 313 and 314:
Page 315 and 316:
Page 317 and 318:
Page 319 and 320:
Page 321 and 322:
Page 323 and 324:
Page 325 and 326:
Page 327 and 328:
Page 329 and 330:
Page 331 and 332:
Page 333 and 334:
Page 335 and 336:
Page 337 and 338:
Page 339 and 340:
Page 341 and 342:
Page 343 and 344:
Page 345 and 346:
Page 347 and 348:
Page 349 and 350:
Page 351 and 352:
Page 353 and 354:
Page 355 and 356:
Page 357 and 358:
Page 359 and 360:
Page 361 and 362:
Page 363 and 364:
Page 365 and 366:
Page 367 and 368:
Page 369 and 370:
Page 371 and 372:
Page 373 and 374:
Page 375 and 376:
Page 377 and 378:
show all

EVALUATION

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?