Modelling benefits at project, programme and portfolio level for EDF's Nuclear generation fleet, case study, David Liversidge, London, 23 June 2016

+44 (0)1225 820980 www.bmt-hqs.com info@bmt-hqs.com ©BMT Hi-Q Sigma Ltd
23 June 2016
Modelling Benefits at
Project, Programme
and Portfolio Level for
EDF’s Nuclear
Generation Fleet
David Liversidge
Principal Consultant

 Background - the Problem
 Our Approach
 Our Plan
 The Outputs: Models, Maps, Profiles, KPIs
 An Unexpected Journey: from Project to
Programme to Portfolio and back again
 Conclusions
Overview

 EDF Nuclear Generation are the licensed operators of a Fleet of 7
Advanced Gas-cooled Reactors (AGRs)
 With a range of Plant Life Extensions (PLEX) campaigns, the fleet
is planned to be retired between 2025 and 2035
 Lifetime Programmes are an organisation within EDF responsible
for delivering a range of strategic programmes to ensure safe,
cost-effective operation of the fleet for its remaining life
 Carbon Deposition is one such cross-cutting lifetime programme;
aimed at mitigating the effects of carbon build-up on the reactor
fuel and auxiliary systems
 The Carbon Deposition programme comprised 5 workstreams:
Prevent; Remove; Harden; Understand; and Manage
 BMT HQS were originally tasked by EDF to help deliver the major
project under the ‘Prevent’ workstream called Deposition
Resistant Fuel (DRF)
 The DRF project was approaching its major investment decision
point and our tasking was extended to cover development of a
benefits model and realisation plan for this project
Background

Our Approach
Understand & Model
the System
Identify & Map the
Benefits
Value & Profile the
Benefits
Plan Benefits
Realisation
Confirm investment
rationale & VFM in
portfolio
Ensure accountability
& transparency
Develop a logical basis
for future steps
Define system into
which the benefits will
be delivered
Realise
Benefits
Physical & Management Systems Interfaces &
Relationships understood. Problem and solution
space bounded. Baseline ‘As-is’ performance
agreed
Causal relationships between candidate change
projects & programmes, outcomes, & benefits
agreed. Scale of benefits estimated.
Interdependencies between changes characterised
Time-phased profiles of benefits showing
quantified baseline & target levels in
financial & non-financial terms. Balance of
investment options appraised.
Benefits prioritised,
appropriate tracking measures
selected & assigned to BCMs.
Plan to realise benefits &
mitigate blockers.
BCMs monitor &
report via PMO /
PfMO

Our Plan

Output 1: Rich Picture

Catalytic CD on
Fuel Pins
Fuel Element
Heat Transfer
Impairment
Increase in Clad
Temp
Post Irradiation
Examination
HTI
Assessment
Process
Increase in
Fission Gas
Pressure
Modelled
Values
(Temperature &
FGP)
Measured
retrospectively
(post dwell) by
Recrystallisation
Clad Melt
Clad Cracking
Increased
Temperature
Variations
Start-Up RFF
Fuel Fault
Studies
Fuel Duties
Fuel Failure
Limiting
Conditions of
Operation
Safety Cases
Assessed
retrospectively
(post dwell) by
HTI SRU
Allowances
Safety Case
Anomaly
Process
If HTI
Allowances >
Safety Case
Limits
Management System
Fuel System
Normal Fuel
System
Operation
Prevents
Defines
Operational
Restrictions
Failed Fuel
stringers
removed early
Failed Fuel
bottled and
stored at station
Failed Fuel
moved to B13
Causes
Failed Fuel
subject to PIE
Failed Fuel
processed and
stored long term
Failed Fuel Route
Nuclear Safety
Requirements
Clad melt
Depressurisatio
n
Asymmetry
PCI
Technical
Specifications
X%
100 - X%
Fission Gas
Over Pressure
Modelled
retrospectively
(post dwell) by
If modelled
values >LCOs
Constrains
Station Compliance Route
Catalytic CD on
Boiler
Components
Boiler Heat
Transfer
Impairment
Spalled Carbon
Impairs Gas
and Fuel Route
Plant
Reduced Boiler
Thermal
Efficiency
Gas/steam
Temperature
Monitoring
Increased
Rework &
MaintenanceMonitored ‘in
line’ by
Boiler System
Normal Boiler
System
Operation
Prevents
Output 2: System Model

 [Redacted]
Output 3: Benefits Maps

 [Redacted]
Output 4: Benefit Profiles

 [Redacted]
Output 5: Realisation Plan (KPI)

An Unexpected Journey: from Project to
Programme to Portfolio and Back Again

An Unexpected Journey: from Project to
Programme to Portfolio and Back Again
Plan Benefits
Realisation
Understand & Model
the System
Identify & Map the
Benefits
Developed a logical system model to capture the complex interactions
between the problem (Carbon Deposition) and the impacts of this on the
system
Developed a logical benefits map which helped EDF to gain an
understanding of how to manage its whole portfolio as opposed to
stand-alone projects and programmes
Developed a benefits profiling tool combined with cost modelling work
to enable a ‘complete package’ of cost-benefit analysis for a range of
assumptions, what-if scenarios. Working with a wide group of
stakeholders added robustness to the decision making process
Value & Profile the
Benefits
Development of KPIs for ongoing management of Carbon Deposition
This analysis enabled EDF to prioritise their investment across the
portfolio and take a conscious strategic decision of alternative action to
invest based on maximising safety and financial benefits

 Be careful what you ask for!
 ‘Whole System’ models can help understanding and identifying complex
cause-and-effect chains; especially where the ‘problem’ consists of
technical and organisational systems interacting
 Stakeholder engagement throughout the process is vital
 A Benefits driven view of dependencies at programme and portfolio
level gives an invaluable perspective to support decisions and ongoing
change management
 A Time based perspective of Benefits is key: the baseline now will not be
the same as the baseline at implementation; you need to understand if
some of your ‘sandwiches will be eaten’
 Benefits Quantification is an inexact science: maps and models will help
but values will be a mix of objective and subjective. You therefore need
to understand risk and uncertainty and model in your estimates
including sensitivity (what-if) analysis to test key assumptions
 Presentation of results must support decisions: Investment Appraisals
and Business Cases; Discounted Cash Flows;
 There should be a parity of rigour in developing cost and benefits, as
well as shared data, assumptions, risks, etc.
key lessonsEDF Case Study

thank you
BMT Hi-Q Sigma Ltd
Berkeley House, The Square
Lower Bristol Road
Bath, BA2 3BH
United Kingdom
www.bmt-hqs.com
Tel: +44 (0) 1225 820980
Fax: +44 (0) 1225 820981
Mob: +44 (0)
David Liversidge
David.Liversidge@bmt-hqs.com
7799 903549

This presentation was delivered
at an APM event
To find out more about
upcoming events please visit our
website www.apm.org.uk/events

Modelling benefits at project, programme and portfolio level for EDF's Nuclear generation fleet, case study, David Liversidge, London, 23 June 2016

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Modelling benefits at project, programme and portfolio level for EDF's Nuclear generation fleet, case study, David Liversidge, London, 23 June 2016

Similar to Modelling benefits at project, programme and portfolio level for EDF's Nuclear generation fleet, case study, David Liversidge, London, 23 June 2016 (20)

More from Association for Project Management

More from Association for Project Management (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Modelling benefits at project, programme and portfolio level for EDF's Nuclear generation fleet, case study, David Liversidge, London, 23 June 2016