EVALUATION

AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION 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