EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Dissemination Two respondents said they have supported dissemination. Demand-Side Response Two respondents stated that they operated DSR trials; the trials of one respondent for domestic and I&C customers. Supplied Product Two of the respondents supplied products, one in the form of a large quantity of smart maters. Research and Development Two respondents had a role that included research and development. Other Contributions One respondent was engaged in meetings and setting test runs and trials, as well as data analysis. Another respondent was also involved in trials, preparing the methodologies, as well as providing expertise to other project partners in order to accelerate their project progress. One respondent contributed to developing commissioning documents and had a part in the commission process Suggestion One respondent made the suggestion that DNOs should consider continuity of expertise in the wider rollout of LCNF learning outcomes. B.4.5 Engagement Mechanisms (Q4.5) Questions: What general comments do you have about the engagement mechanisms used by the DNOs in respect of initiation, your inclusion and involvement and development of ideas throughout the project lifespan? B.4.5.1 Summary of Responses In general the responses were very positive – with the majority, thirteen of the seventeen that replied, of the respondents classing their engagement with the DNOs as a positive experience. Two respondents did not respond to this question. B.4.5.2 Positive Response One respondent mentioned the high motivation of DNO staff, with another respondent finding the DNO communicative and engaged, saying they helped develop and adapt ideas throughout. Other respondents had similar positive views to these – with comments made such as clear communication channels, professional and robust engagement, and effective project collaboration. Another respondent stated that they maintained a close PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 156
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF relationship with both the DNO and the other project partners during the delivery phase, both on an ad hoc basis and regularly scheduled project partner meetings. B.4.5.3 Negative Responses One respondent found that the combination of the different working cultures and motivation of the project partners could at times lead to licensees marginalising the other partners. Another respondent thought that there was a tendency for the engagement to be biased towards personal relationships, meaning you often saw the same project partners with the same DNO year after year. B.4.5.4 Suggestions One respondent felt that DNOs proactively encouraging third party innovation ideas, as National Power used to, would be beneficial. Finally, one respondent suggested that discussing and establishing good practice with regards to innovation programme management could be a valuable initiative. B.4.6 Commercial Arrangements (Q4.6) Questions: How well did the LCNF allow satisfactory commercial arrangements? B.4.6.1 Summary of Responses Over half of the respondents (twelve) believed the LCNF allowed for satisfactory commercial arrangements, with several saying they had no concerns. Two respondents did not answer this question. B.4.6.2 Other Points One respondent remarked that some costs were met by them, and for the remaining costs WPD issued them with a PO. B.4.6.3 Reservations & Suggestions One respondent felt that it would be beneficial for various elements to make up contribution, as they mainly provide people meaning their only real recourse to contribute is through reduced day rates. On one of their projects the DNO did aim to involve the right partner activities within contract and this worked well in their opinion. Another respondent stated that DNOs are naïve regarding what offers will entice customers, and believe they need to take note of (in their case) DSR aggregators’ experience in designing proposals for customers. One respondent, though they believed the arrangements were satisfactory thought there should be more flexibility regarding change considering the innovative nature of the projects. PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 157
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:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 159: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
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?