Learnings

Outcomes

The final report and appendices were delivered in December 2023.  
 
Work package 1: Generate a comprehensive list of current, emerging and future service providers across voltages and fuel types and detail their technical service provisions.  
Consultants delivered a robust assessment of service providers, achieving Work Package 1.  
Work Package 2: Understand how these providers make their commercial decisions. This will include factors that influence investment and operational / market entry decisions, as well as locationality and environmental considerations. Carry out comprehensive segmentation of providers/investors based on their risk appetite and routes to market, e.g., via an aggregator, a supplier etc. 
This work package was partially met. A list of commercial factors was provided, however, the limited insights from this reduced the value add. As such, this is considered partially met; likely owing to factors detailed in the lessons’ learnt section above.  
Work Package 3: Building on the mapping of the overall stakeholder landscape to translate these into the practical and commercial issues experienced along the provider journey.  
This work package was partially met. Pain points were provided, yet, these too were high-level summaries which do not identify concrete next steps to address them.   
Work Package 4: Overlay the findings from work packages 1-3 onto the suite of ESO balancing service markets to access their efficacy against providers’ capabilities and business models.  
This work package was partially met. The knock-on impact of limited insights provided in WP2&3 limited the value add from overlaying these findings onto our markets. This was reflected in the broad recommendations provided which, similarly to WP3, are not actable.  
Work Package 5: Pulling together all the work of phases 1-4 to create a summary report.  

Commentary:  
This work package was met. A final report was provided following an extensive revision period.  
Looking forward, there is an opportunity to consider building upon this NIA project through an altered lens; reframing a future project where the most value for our customers and consumers exists. An internal assessment of next steps is ongoing.  
 

Lessons Learnt

Breadth of topic – longer timescales – lots of interest  
The project received considerable interest from our customers and stakeholders which led to greater timescales required to see progress in various work packages. In hindsight, more time could have been applied to this.  
 
Detailing technological requirements:  
An in-depth literature review was conducted within Phase 1 to better understand the technical characteristics of existing and future service providers. The results of this exercise provide an in-depth understanding of these characteristics and we therefore recommend the use of this research method for future similar studies. This allowed progression onto the next stages to include more depth owing to understanding the technologies technical abilities. 
   
Technology sheets – useful visual –  
Building on from the technical requirements above, the data and context has been usefully summarized into a ‘technology sheet’ section which details the technical alongside commercial considerations / wider landscape notes for the technology in question. This has allowed the ESO to disseminate information pertaining to a certain technology across the ESO and to external stakeholders with ease and communicates the key messages well.  This should be recommended as a viable means to convey information in a succinct manner for future projects.  
 
Not meeting original objectives and lessons learnt:  
As detailed within the ‘Performance Compared to the Original Project Aims, Objectives and Success Criteria’ section, many of the original objectives were not fully met from an ESO perspective. On reflection, there are several reasons why this may have been the case.  Whilst this is not a review of our working relationship with the consultants, it is of note that the lessons learnt must consider improvements that could have been made by both parties.  
 
First and foremost, there was room for improved communication. It is worth considering how greater clarity on the objectives would likely have resulted in a clearer role for the consultants and therefore a greater meeting of our intended objectives. On reflection, the SMART framework could have been positively employed.  
 
Second, we acknowledge that during the process our asks was amended to bring forward new learnings which were only partially covered in the initial ask. Whilst the scope for scope creep may have been enhanced owing to the length of the project, clearer scoping at the beginning with the consultants would likely have been to the benefit of both parties.  

Third, the limited insights may also stem from concerns of Intellectual Property. Though appropriate legal text was drafted and agreed upon to permit the secure sharing of information, there were times where the source of the information provided in the report was called to question e.g., stemming only from interviews conducted as part of this project and not the wealth of existing learnings held by the consultants internally. Clearer statements of where the information would be stemming from could  mitigate future risks of this occurring.