EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF • the DNO believed an alternative solution would be a better or more cost effective way to achieve the solution; • the DNO did not agree with the need for the solution proposed; • did not comply with distribution network planning standards (ENA ER P2/6); and • had not completed or shared learning from project with work already undertaken. A.1.4 Sharing Learning (Q1.3.4) Questions: Please outline the processes you used to share learning from the LCNF trials A.1.4.1 Methods of Dissemination General Methods All of the respondents mentioned similar dissemination methods. Project–specific dissemination events were mentioned by every respondent as a medium they utilised to share learning. Three of the respondents provided several of their methods for knowledge sharing. The mediums that were utilised by the majority of these three respondents were: • their innovation websites, containing project reports and updates; • social media; • articles published in the press; • webinars; • conferences (such as the LCNF conference); • the ENA Smarter Network portal; and • newsletters. Stakeholder events/workshops were mentioned by two respondents. One of these respondents hosted workshops for stakeholders if the project is of a wider interest to a group of stakeholders. One of the respondents also mentioned that they had articles published in journals such as IEEE and Applied Energy, and had a peer-review process at project closedown which has proven to be useful. Another of the respondents actually visited the future networks teams of other DNOs to present their findings and the key implications for DNOs, they found this a useful exercise as they got feedback from colleagues dealing with similar challenges. This same respondent found hosting technical sessions to be beneficial – meaning they could present their findings to experts in the field, can involve learning more on the specific technologies. Knowledge Exchange Forum Knowledge Exchange Forums were mentioned by one of the respondents. For one of their projects, CLNR, they created the Sustainability First Smart Demand Forum – this PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 118
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF combined the knowledge from CLNR and customer-related projects, as business implementation can often require more than one project. The information from this forum fed into the Smart Grids Forum sub group investigating commercial and regulatory barriers for smart grids. This same respondent hosted a dissemination event for those working in the same field when working on their 33kV super-conducting fault current limiter project, this allowed them to share their knowledge and develop a better understanding of the technology. Several of the attendees had not been directly involved in their or other industry projects, at that time. A.1.4.2 Audience One of the respondents highlighted their key stakeholders for learning derived from our innovation projects made up of various industry groups and including Ofgem; DECC; and wider government agencies; UK DNOs; the ENA; academic institutions; Association of Electricity Producers (AEP); Citizens Advice; and Smart Energy Demand Coalition (SEDC). Another respondent split their audience into six group; internal, DNOs, energy industry, policy makers, academics, and the public – with other DNOs being their primary audience. They believed it was important to communicate with each group in the most appropriate manner. A.1.5 Involvement of Third Parties (Q1.3.5) Questions: How has the involvement of third parties affected the breadth of innovation or success of the projects? A.1.5.1 Summary of Responses All the respondents felt the involvement of third parties had increased the breadth of innovation and actively contributed to the success of the projects. One of the respondents elaborated on this to say that the third parties brought experience and knowledge from other international markets, resources financial and otherwise, capabilities not present in the DNOs, as well as a different perspective and thus different approaches to projects. Another respondent commented that in all of their projects they ensure each partner is involved in at least one key milestone and deliverable. Finally, one of the respondents felt that third parties have a positive impact if supervised/safeguarded by the network operator. Third Parties Leading Projects One of the respondents “hosted” a third party to lead a technology trial on our network as part of their I2EV project. They found this encouraged the evolution of new service delivery models. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 119
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:
Page 71 and 72: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 121: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?