EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF B.1.5.4 Reservations One respondent, made an observation that partners sometimes are unaware of the amount of work and commitment required for the projects, which really comes into play at the end of the project when they are limited on time or interest. They feel if OFGEM gave more information regarding the exact project requirements it could hopefully avoid this in the future. They also think it should be made clearer what exactly the fund is i.e. an adjustment to allowable revenue as opposed to a money pot. Another respondent thought that the objective had only been partially met – but collaboration has definitely improved as many DNO managers are in constant communication with each other. Their concern is that the now experienced staff members are not lost due to the usual routes, and if they are that it is ensured new staff members are properly informed on the LCNF. It was the view of one respondent that the collaboration is not as great as people like to believe, but DNOs actually conduct themselves more like competitors. Finally, another respondent believed that the collaborative aspects have been carried out to varying degrees of success. They say this is down to the complexities of the LCNF bidding process and the governance of the project, as this puts constraints on the way the project partners operate. They think that this may not be the most efficient way to deliver an innovation project. B.1.6 Barriers that Affected the Outcome of the Project (Q1.6) Questions: Are you aware of any barriers that may have affected the outcome of the projects? B.1.6.1 Summary of Responses There were six respondents that stated that they knew of no barriers that may have affected the outcome of the projects. The others commented on the barriers that affected the projects they were involved in, with only two respondents not answering the question. B.1.6.2 Customer Engagement A fifth of the respondents highlighted customer engagement as a barrier, as it is not an area DNOs have usually been active in, as this is usually mediated by retailers as pointed out by a respondent. The issue was the difficulty in getting the participation of consumers. One respondent pointed out that DNOs would often make naïve assumptions regarding offers that would appeal to customers, often choosing the wrong ones. B.1.6.3 Governance Governance was another barrier mentioned by several respondents. One respondent gave their views of the governance of Tier 2 projects – saying it was a definite barrier and the focus on value for money for customers meant the projects became very risk averse leading to concepts become less innovative. They say the Tier 2 bids from year 2 onwards are evidence of this. They say it was clear from the DNOs that they had struggled during the change control process with Ofgem, meaning they were hesitant to develop any projects with a less than high certain outcome. They continue on to say they think this has created irreversible damage to the Tier 2 (now NIC) network innovation programme. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 138
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF The complexity of the bid preparation and submission process was mentioned by one respondent stating it requires a range of resources, continuing on to say that the process could have been more efficient if it weren’t for various governance requirements and numerous review rounds (ISP, final bid, Q&A process, interrogation report, two expert panel meetings). Finally, one respondent stated that Ofgem set unreasonable project constraints, giving EATL’s My Electric Avenue as an example of this. B.1.6.4 Other Barriers Various other barriers were mentioned by the project partners that responded. These are listed below: • concerns for the treatment of Intellectual Property, as stated by one respondent; • barriers in the CLNR project were mentioned by two respondents; - one respondent mentioned supplier ownership of data as a problem as they feel data collected with public money should be public – so the collection then disposal of the data at the end of the project was a design failure; and - another respondent mentioned the lack of EVs on the road at the time of the project an issue, as well as the lack of DSR value (peak and off peak differential). • the nature of the project (research and development) makes it less predictable and thus more chance of unforeseen issues occurring, as pointed out by one respondent continuing on to say this is why projects like FALCON are key to show proof of concept and a path forward; • another respondent makes a point that some projects may have external dependencies (SMIP for example) and these need to be properly understood in order to be managed properly; • internal resistance to change/inherent conservatism; • training and replicate learning; • lack of resource; • economics; and • strategic fit. Also one respondent felt it was telling that not all of the money was spent – this suggests that DNOs were short of viable ideas – showing a lack of resource or initiative for DNOs to look externally. B.1.7 Barriers That May Have Discouraged Project Partner Involvement (Q1.7) Questions: Are you aware of any barriers that may have discouraged project partner involvement? B.1.7.1 Summary of Responses The majority of respondents were aware of barriers that discouraged project partner involvement, but five respondents said they knew of no barriers. Two respondents did not pass comment. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 139
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:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 141: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
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?