EVALUATION

Recommendations

Info

AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF Some respondents mentioned the trials that are building on the work of previous trials. For example; National Grid’s Transmission & Distribution Interface 2016 project screening bid which builds on UK Power Networks KASM LCNF Tier 2 project, WPD approaching UKPN for a specification for a phase-shifting transformer following their successful deployment of that device as part of their Flexible Plug & Play Networks project, South Wales network logging, Orkney DSM trials. Another respondent knew that the lessons learnt from their NIA funded project have been adopted by two other DNOs. They believe when a DNO is adopting a new technology, due to their risk adverse culture it is important that they feel supported, and see that other DNOs have confidence in the technology. A further respondent has been approached by other DNOs for equipment intending to use it for the same function as other DNOs have; which they have deduced is due to knowledge dissemination. Finally, one respondent say they have delivered many projects through IFI, NIA and NIC funding that have been fully adopted by the sponsor GDN, this has been accompanied by the sharing of learning. They carry on it say it is a slow process, often requiring the supplier to push it, as opposed to the network. C.1.5 LCNF Meeting its Objective Regarding Effective Collaboration Between DNOs and Project Partners (Q1.5) Questions: Do you believe that the LCNF has met its objective of effective collaboration between the DNOs and project partners? Where appropriate please provide evidence of the success, or otherwise, of collaboration C.1.5.1 Summary of Responses The general consensus as agreed on by nine respondents was that the LCNF has met this objective, with many respondents speaking positively regarding the collaboration that has occurred. One respondent stated that there has been a marked increase in partnering since IFI. C.1.5.2 Project Partners Involved Two respondents mentioned the diverse range of project partners there has been – academics, consultants, SMEs, technology suppliers – with the latter adding that this has expanded project scopes beyond technical matters. Small Medium Enterprises Three of the respondents, mentioned the point that SMEs are less likely to be involved in the LCNF than larger companies. Two of these respondents made the point that DNOs are more likely to work with universities and major suppliers than companies such as SMEs and start-ups. The latter said this behaviour was justified due to DNOs being under such pressure DNOs are under to deliver by both Ofgem and their shareholders; and with them having responsibility for Critical National Infrastructure they need to have the utmost confidence in their partners. The former believes the suppliers could also have pushed harder to get involved, but has heard feedback that the network operators are not keen for their networks to be used to PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 170
AN INDEPENDENT <strong>EVALUATION</strong> OF THE LCNF test new developments – especially those that are out with the comfort zone of the industry. Another of the respondents felt this was due to the large risk a company has to take on being part of a project and this risk being not proportional to the company size, meaning it favours large companies. They feel if this risk was eased, many more SMEs could get involved and it would benefit the UK market. C.1.5.3 Other Points One respondent remarked that some DNOs now actively invite proposals through their websites or issue calls for expression for interest. Whereas another respondent believes DNOs are generally the initiator when it comes to project proposals. The same respondent thinks stakeholder collaboration is essential for a successful roll-out of innovative technology. One respondent believes those projects that involved project partners, National Grid and other DNOs at an early stage definitely benefited from it. Finally, one respondent noted that there is evidence of project partner – DNO collaboration but less so of DNO – DNO collaboration though they do learn from other trials. C.1.5.4 Barriers Another respondent is aware of some larger companies being hesitant to participate in later years due to the degree of IP sharing required meaning they could not retain IP where they expected. One respondent made the point that potential project partners do not want to collaborate with DNOs on developing a project idea as they then need to tender for it; they think DNOs prefer to develop the idea themselves then tender for equipment, which reduces collaboration. Another respondent believed that DNOs need to be penalised if they do not have good time management, in eight projects they were involved in only two were delivered on time, and for the ones carrying on longer than intended the project partner must ensure they have staff available for the duration of the project for smooth delivery. One respondent mentions that there may be problems with commercial projects as a result of confidentiality issues. The view of one respondent was that the follow-on collaboration projects they had planned were rejected due to direct interference by the EIC. Finally, one respondent believes that given the uncertain return on projects, the collaboration is more limited than would be expected considering the money on offer. C.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? PÖYRY MANAGEMENT CONSULTING October 2016 713_Poyry_Report_Evaluation_of_the_LCNF_FINAL_Oct_2016_v700.docx 171
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:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
Page 173: AN INDEPENDENT EVALUATION OF THE LC
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?