EVALUATION

AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LCNF
appraisal of the chance of success at this stage – as this will avoid significant cost and
loss of confidence in the process.
Finally, one respondent believed that the LCNF funded projects that are not favourable in
a business as usual environment, may work in an innovative environment.
B.2 Innovation in GB
B.2.1
Would The Innovation Projects Have Occurred Without The LCNF (Q2.1)
Questions:
To what extent do you believe that these innovation projects would have occurred
without the LCNF? Are you able to provide examples to support your views?
B.2.1.1 Summary of Responses
All of the respondents bar two stated that the innovation projects would not have occurred
without the LCNF or otherwise that the projects would not have occurred in such a quick
timeframe or at the same scale without the LCNF.
B.2.1.2 Timeframe and Scale
Six respondents felt that the LCNF has definitely sped up the execution of these projects.
Two respondents believed innovation projects could not have been undertaken at to the
same scale without the LCNF.
B.2.1.3 Knowledge Dissemination and Innovation Culture
One respondent made the point that it is not just the funding that aided the projects – it is
the generation of an innovation culture. It was also mentioned by respondents that the
LCNF created a good knowledge share culture within the industry, including between
DNOs. One of these respondents also mentioned the increase in knowledge transfer
internally in DNOs. The LCNF encourages the DNOs and their project partners to look
into increasingly innovative solutions than they ever would have otherwise – as agreed
with by a respondent.
B.2.1.4 Funding
A quarter of respondents pointed out that the projects could not have been funded without
the LCNF, with one respondent commenting that looking at storage examples most of
these would not have been able to be self-funded as the initial cap ex was around 10 –
30% too high. Another respondent states they could not see how the projects could have
begun without the funding in place to encourage collaboration between DNOs and their
partners.
A respondent mentioned an innovative (LCNF type) bus project put together prior to the
fund by Arup-Mitsui – so they think some focus should have been put on encouraging the
local authorities and DNOs to facilitate unfunded projects.
Finally, one respondent commented that without funding the networks would have to go
for low-risk innovation options, as it would require network shareholder investment.
PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING
October 2016
713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx
143