Page 1 of 30
Stena Don
Emissions Reduction
Innovation Workshop
Aberdeen19th – 20th April 2017
Page 2 of 30
STENA DON EMISSIONS REDUCTION – INNOVATION WORKSHOP
Index
Section Content Page1) Executive summary 4-52) Introduction – General
2-1) Challenge2-2) Problem Definition Workshop2-3) Problem Definition Workshop Attendees2-4) Problem Definition Workshop Agenda
6667
3) Innovation Introduction3-1) Innovation background – Creative Problem Solving3-2) Open Innovation principle3-3) Open Innovation process
888
4) Stena Don – Background Information (Rosie Clegg)4-1) Opportunity4-2) Success4-3) Current status – engines on Stena Don4-4) Competition4-5) Station keeping4-6) Drilling equipment4-7) Boundaries and constraints4-8) Stena Don initial thoughts
999999
1010
5) Presentations5-1)Presentations5-2) Presentation summary – Siemens ESS proposal5-3) Presentation summary – Optimisation of operating strategy5-4) Presentation summary – New engines
10101111
6) Challenges – How Might We’s6-1) Challenges – How Might We’s6-2) Siemens ESS Proposal – How Might We’s6-3) Optimising Operating Strategy – How Might We’s6-4) New Engines – How Might We’s
12121313
7) Why-Why-Why Analysis7-1) Why-Why-Why Analysis7-2) HMW develop lower cost ESS technology with instantaneous availability7-3) HMW comply with tier 3 without replacing engines7-4) HMW run one engine rather than two engines in the engine room7-5) HMW overcome the culture of using maximum energy 24/7
1414151617
8) Review of Options8-1) Crowdsourcing8-2) Optimising operating strategy impact/implementation matrix
1819
9) Creative Problem Solving Process9-1) Theory of process9-2) Process applied to Stena Don9-3) Benefits of the process
202122
Page 3 of 30
Section Content Page
10) Optimise the Operating Strategy10-1) Optimise the strategy work plan10-2) Complexity of implementing each area identified
2324
11) Outputs11-1) Financial summary – review of options11-2) Critical path schedule – implement operating strategy from technical perspective11-3) Critical path schedule – deploy operating strategy within the organisation11-4) Potential re-application of proposed solutions to other rigs11-5) Stena Don additional steps for optimising the operational strategy
2526
272828
12) Comments on Workshop12-1) Comments on workshop – general12-2) Positive comments about workshop12-3) Negative comments about workshop12-4) Queries about workshops
28293030
13) Action Points Arising out of Workshop 30
Page 4 of 30
1) Executive Summary
ChallengeManagement Team at Stena Drilling – defined their innovation challenge as minimise the carbon emissions on The Stena Don.
Creative Problem Definition WorkshopDay creative problem solving workshop held on 19th-29th April with attendees from Stena Drilling, Stena Teknik and an external facilitator.
Background Information What success would look like Stena Don engines New technology on new drilling rigs
Options Reviewed Siemens ESS proposals Optimisation of operation strategy New engines
For All Options – DivergeBrainstorming session for each option to discover challenges in the form of how might we’s for each option Siemens ESS proposals – 18 challenges Optimising operation strategy – 14 challenges New engine design – 10 challenges
Select Best Challenges – ConvergeFocus on top challenges and perform why, why, why analysis:
HMW develop lower cost ESS technology with instantaneous availability (section 7-2) HMW comply with tier 3 without replacing engines (section 7-3) HMW run one engine rather than two engines in the engine room (section 7-4) HMW overcome the culture of using maximum energy (section 7-5)
Benefits of Process (Section 9-3)The attendees of the workshop saw the benefits of the workshop as collaboration, trust, diversity of views, structured process for assessing options and accelerating the decision making process.
Review of Options – Converge It was decided by the workshop that the option of optimising the operating strategy would
be reviewed in more detail Plans were prepared for implementing the strategy from a technical and an organisational
perspective
Page 5 of 30
Option – Optimise the Operating Strategy – Outputs
The outputs were generated from the experience of the workshop attendees and will have to be verified in detail.
Cost of implementation – capital and start up (section 11-1) Capital expenditure on equipment $540K Internal resources $740K
$1280K
Financial savings from projects (section 11-1) Main/auxiliary seawater system $248K Hydraulic power unit/heat recovery $497K Power production $1040K Emission tax reduction $470K
$2255K
Action plan with key milestones for both implementing and deploying optimising the operating strategy. (sections 11-2 and 11-3)
Shows timing of critical actions
Potential re-application of proposed solutions to other rigs (section 11-4) Implementing ideas that can be re-applied to other rigs
Additional steps for Stena Don (section 11-5) Additional actions to reduce emissions
Comments on the workshop (section 12-2, 12-3 and 12-4) Comments on workshop
Page 6 of 30
2-1) Challenge
The Management Team at Stena Drilling defined their challenge as - Minimise the carbon emissions on The Stena Don
This challenge will help to achieve the Stena Don environmental objectives and will be critical in securing future contracts within Norway for the Stena Don
2-2) Problem Definition Workshop
A problem definition workshop was held at Stena Drilling on 19th-20th April 2017 A lot of pre-work was prepared by Rosie Clegg to ensure the workshop was a success
2-3) Problem Definition Workshop Attendees
There was tremendous knowledge and experience brought by all the attendees from the shore and the rig. The attendees were:
Graham Brunt – Technical Manager Innes Cormack – Engineering Manager Matt McCaul – Electrical Superintendent Marc Swinton – Engineering Superintendent Rosie Clegg – Senior Design Engineer Brian Innes – HSE Advisor Angus Macdonald – Rig Accountant Frode Pederson – Rig Manager, Stena Don Arne Ljungberg – Chief Engineer, Stena Don Cato Hansen – OIM, Stena Don Hans Tistrand – Stena Teknik Alan Gordon – Innovation Director Wayne Fisher – Facilitator
Page 7 of 30
2-4) Problem Definition Workshop Agenda
Welcome/Introductions Stena Open Innovation Overview
o Creative Problem Solvingo Open Innovation Workflowo Bio-fouling case study
Background on the problemo Statoil/Industry requirementso Key facts/unknownso Sharing How Might We’s
Proposed Solution Approacheso Siemens ESS proposalo Chief Engineer proposal (Optimisation of operating strategy)o New engine design
Brainstorming challenges for all potential solutionso Brainstorming challenges for Siemens ESS proposal/Chief Engineer proposal/New
engine designo Select top challenges and prepare why-why-why analysiso Select best of proposed solution approaches
For best solution proposed approacho Prepare financialso Critical path analysis
Comments on workshopo Positive/negative/queries
Page 8 of 30
3-1) Innovation Background – Creative Problem Solving
The majority of companies involved in innovation have a process for moving from an opportunity/problem to a solution. The model we are using is creative problem solving.
3-2) Open Innovation Principle
Open innovation believes all the problems in the world have been solved Challenge is to find who has solved the problem This is different from normal problem solving where you try to create a solution internally
from scratch
3-3) Open Innovation Process
Have developed the following process for open innovation from promotion/challenges to implementation
The two critical steps in the process are step 3 problem definition workshop and step 5 landscaping, however the key is for leaders to define a challenge in the problem definition workshop
Page 9 of 30
STENA DON – BACKGROUND INFORMATION (ROSIE CLEGG)
4-1) Opportunity
To remain competitive and win contracts from Statoil, need to look at reducing emission and operating costs for the Stena Don
Stena Don was the top performing rig (drilling) at the time of contract cancellation
4-2) Success
Reducing emissions and maintenance will assist the Stena Don in winning contracts as
Costs will be reduced (fuel and tax) Maintenance costs will be reduced Environmental performance of the rig will be improved Lower day rates in the market become more sustainable
4-3) Current Status – Engines on Stena Don
Currently very reliable Maintenance is primarily based on running hours Expected life span is another 15+ years
o Could require replacement sooner if regulatory emissions target change or major increase in failures
Engines were upgraded in mid 2000’s to reduce NOx emissions No SCRs or Urea injection systems are installed At present waste heat from the engines is used in FW generation
o No other energy recovery or conservation is used
4-4) Competition
Newer rigs like Midmax are typically built with SCRs and Urea injection Some have capacitor banks for the draw works to improve control of the spinning reserve Dynpos – ER notation is also on some newer rigs, which would probably allow for more
efficient operation
4-5) Stationkeeping
Is the major component of power usage and therefore fuel consumption. This is highly weather dependent.
4-6) Drilling Equipment
In particular mud pumps and top drive is the second highest power consumer. Loads are operation dependent.
4-7) Boundaries and Constraints
Page 10 of 30
Maintaining DP3 capability is mandatory VDL capacity of the rig must not be significantly affected Benefits of any solutions need to justify the associated costs Reliability must not be compromised New technologies need to be compatible with existing support infrastructure (e.g.
methanol may not be practical given the available supply chain)
4-8) Stena Don – Initial Thoughts (Rosie Clegg)
Battery storage system such as Siemens ESS Potential to run fewer engines at a higher load Closed bus operation – saves on engine hours and maintenance costs but may undermine
fundamentals of a DP3 – system New engines SCR installation – Sox Reduce power requirements on board and improve efficiency Reduce maintenance frequency
5-1) Presentations
During the workshop there were 3 excellent presentation
Siemens ESS proposals – Marc Swinton, Engineering Superintendent Optimisation of Operation Strategy – Arne Ljungberg, Chief Engineer, Stena Don New Engines – Marc Swinton, Engineering Superintendent
5-2) Siemens ESS System – Summary – Prepared by Marc Swinton
Energy storage system to reduce fuel costs, maintenance costs and emissions with a subsequent reduction in taxes
Detailed calculations had been performed in relation to reduction in fuel and maintenance costs along with taxes on emissions
A capital cost for the project had also been prepared
Page 11 of 30
5-3) Optimisation of Operation Strategy – Summary – Prepared by Arne Ljungberg, Chief Engineer, Stena Don
Philosophies
Only perform measures that will not compromise our ability to perform operation or DP class
Only use energy to perform our operation safely Produce the energy necessary for the operation as efficient as possible Recover low grade energy from systems in operation Implemented measures should preferably also intend to reduce maintenance costs Implement measures to reduce possibility for human error as a result of implemented
system changes
To Ensure Energy Optimisation Process as Effective as Possible Need
A good understanding of all onboard processes and the interaction between the processes
Key Areas of Presentation
Reduction of energy consumptiono Main sea water systemo Auxiliary sea water systemo Hydraulic power unit – feed pumps
Efficient power productiono Improved engine fuel efficiency
Recovery Energyo Heat recovery
Results/Calculations
Detailed calculations were performed in relation to reduced fuel consumption, reduced maintenance costs and reduced environmental footprint and taxes
Further Improvements to be considered
Reduce number of thrusters? Reduce number of lifting pumps? Install vfd’s for more equipment More recovery of low grade energy from various processes
5-4) New Engines – Summary – prepared by Marc Swinton
Replace current 3 engines with 2 larger engines with SCR technology to reduce NOx emissions to IMO tier 3 level
Larger engines would be two sizes Weight increase would be +198 tons
Page 12 of 30
6-1) Challenges – How Might We’s
The first exercise that was performed during the workshop was to identify challenges associated with the Siemens ESS proposal and optimising the operating strategy and new engines
The challenges were expressed as How Might We’s
6-2) Siemens ESS Proposal – How Might We’s
How Might We…..
Match energy supply to demand and fulfil DP3 requirements? Improve forecasting for energy requirements in advance and automatically adjust energy
productions? Improve process for restarting engines to reduce amount of energy to be stored? Reduce the number of running engines without installing battery packs (DP3 Philosophy)? Reduce installation costs for ESS by 50%? Develop lower cost ESS technology with instantaneous availability? Charge the batteries offline/without main engine? Reduce the number of battery packs and still be within the DP3 requirements? Reduce battery weight, space required & installation cost? Eliminate degenerate charge through continuous usage? Correctly identify DP operation & predictability requirements for the Stena Don? Reduce equipment purchase cost? Future proof existing power plant against future regulation changes? Run with less engines? Show market improvements for vessel & make us attractive? Separate the issue of running 2 engines vs 1 per ER and spinning reserve provided by
batteries? Reduce the total cost? Might we get payback for the investment?
Page 13 of 30
6-3) Optimising Operating Strategy – How Might We’s
How Might We…. Take best ideas as best practice across Stena Drilling fleet? Overcome culture of always having 2 engines running per engine room? Prioritise improvements with greatest potential? Review all processes/equipment for potential improvement? Identify other systems that could yield good savings through changes in operational
culture? Eliminate need for running 2 cooling pumps due to DP3? Determine costs for Arne suggestion? Overcome culture of always having drilling ancillary systems running continuously? Maintain reliability with reduced number of running generators? Run one engine in each engine room and still be in line with DP class requirement? Reduce number of lift pumps in use without negative effect on drilling KPI? Change the resistance from running too much pumps, thrusters, engines etc. to run less
equipment in order to save fuel? Comply with tier 3? Run only necessary number of thrusters and still maintain DP class requirements?
6-4) New Engine Design – How Might We’s
How Might We…..
Meet IMO Tier 3 without replacing the engines? Determine the timescale for delivery and installation? Integrate our objectives with the requirements of IMO Tier 3? Obtain external funding for engine upgrade? Determine installation cost? Better understand Tier 3 requirements? Reduce weight impact? Install heavy engines without adding more weight to strengthen the foundation in the
engine room? Replace the engines without loosing potential (rig time) contracts in 2018? Overcome the extra weight reduction in VDL of 600T?
Page 14 of 30
7-1) Why-Why-Why Analysis General
All participants reviewed all the challenges on the wall shown in section 6-2, 6-3 & 6-4 and voted for the challenges that would make the most difference.
The top challenges were selected for analysis by why-why-why:
HMW develop lower cost ESS technology with instantaneous availability? (7-2) HMW comply with Tier 3 without replacing engines? (7-3) HME run one engine rather than two engines in the engine room? (7-4) HMW overcome the culture of using maximum energy? (7-5)
7-2) Why-Why-Why Analysis
Initial Problem Statement – HMW develop lower cost ESS technology with instantaneous availability?
Ideal Outcome – Low cost ESS technology providing energy required when needed
MonetaryCost
Weight Cost VDL
Power Available Cost
Instantaneous Availability
Switchboard ESS vs Thruster ESS
Batteries or Capacitors
Fuel Cell Lead Acid
Lithium IONCapacitor
UnpredictableVariable
Loads
NoSustained Spinning Reserve
Availability& Maintenance
Weather Charging Load & Duration of Sustainability
Page 15 of 30
7-3) Why-Why-Why Analysis
Initial Problem Statement – HMW comply with Tier 3 without replacing engines?
Ideal Outcome – No engine change out required Tier 3 compliant
Existing engines not
Tier 3
Wartila say SCRS can’t be fitted
Other Technology
Need More info on Tier
3
Emissions too High
Might others be able to
help
Vested interest in
selling engines
Why? Why?
Exhaust capture/
filter
Exhaust gas re-
circulation
Discuss with competitors or other operators
Any potential Grandfather
clause
Non compliance Implications
Is it relevant?
?
Exemptions
Page 16 of 30
7-4) Why-Why-Why Analysis
Initial Problem Statement – HMW Run one engine rather than two engines in the engine room?
Ideal Outcome – Run one engine per engine room
Easier No Incentive Avoid Partial
Blackout (loss of DPS)
Safe Guarding (Risk averse)
Self Imposed Requirements
Culture
Lack of Understanding
of System
Have not Quantified
Risks
Normal Practice
Equipment Reliability
Predictability
InterruptionTo drillingoperation
AdditionalBarrier e.g.
Human Error
Downtime
Reputation
Page 17 of 30
7-5) Why-Why-Why Analysis
Initial Problem Statement – HMW Overcome the culture of using maximum energy 24/7?
Ideal Outcome – All personnel have understanding of tower management technical system to run equipment as efficiently/safely as possible
* How the system operates and connects with each system
Lack of Knowledge *
SafetyAspect
Blame What isRedundancy
KPI’sClient
Pressure
StatusQuo
Own Understanding 100% run is
efficient
No Training/Info given
Comfort Zone
No Need –Not required
Left to technical
team
Historical Making Money
No questions
Upper MGMNT
100% Run= Redundancy %
Downtime/KPI’s
BeingAccountable
QuestionsFrom
Management
Demand100%
Don’t want to take chance
Don’t tinker if not broken
PreviousHistory
Stop/StartScenario
People Don’t Like Change
Don’t Understand
MoreEffort
ComfortZone
No ClearGuidance/Procedure
Problem Does not
Exist
Tasks notDefined with
Limits
No ReasonTo capture
This
Page 18 of 30
8-1) Crowdsourcing
At the end of the first day we did a crowdsourcing exercise to tap into the vast amount of experience in the workshop.
For the three main alternatives being discussed at the workshop – namely:
Siemens ESS proposal Optimising the operation strategy New engines
We did a crowdsourcing exercise by asking all attendees to indicate their preference for each alternative by stating their implementation intention:
Would definitely implement Might implement May/may not implement Might not implement Would definitely not implement
The results are shown in the table below.
Proposal Would notImplement
May/May Not
WouldImplement
SiemensESS Proposal
Optimising Operational Strategy
NewEngines
The workshop attendees decided that the most promising option would be optimising operating strategy so this was the area of focus for the rest of the workshop.
Page 19 of 30
8-2) Optimising Operating Strategy – Impact/Implementation Matrix
The Impact/Implementation matrix shows visually the different projects that are involved in optimising the operating strategy.
Time to Implement
Magnitude of Savings
Run one engine in each engine room when load allows
(AGS)
Insulate main HPU system tank
6-5 Thrusters in good weather
Sea water to LT cooler only when engine is running
Temperature controller on
LT-cooler
VFDS for ventilation
systems
Reduce number of lifting pumps
Auxiliary sea water system
HPU Feed Pumps VFD
Low grade energy recovery
HX System diesel engine
cooling/hydraulic oil heating
Page 20 of 30
9) Creative Problem Solving Process
9-1) Theory of Process
Key Process Skill:
Defer Judgement
Key CPS Process Skills
Define the problem before you try to solve it Diverge before you converge at every step
Characteristics of Good Problem Statement
Detailed problem statements written in complete sentences makes idea generation easier. Use “How Might We…?” to turn negative facts into more positively-stated problem
statements for idea generation. Be divergent! Every fact captured shared during storytelling has the potential to become a
new “How Might We…?” statement.
Page 21 of 30
9-2) Process Applied to Stena Don
3 Potential Solutions Identified for Workshop
Brainstorm Challenges as HMW’s
Select Top Challenges – To PerformFurther Detailed Analysis – Why-Why-Why
Crowdsourcing Exercise to IdentifyBest Solution from 3 Presented
For Deploy and Implement OperatingStrategy Identify Challenges
Prepare Critical Path Schedule and Financials
Diverge Diverge
Converge Converge
Converge Converge
Converge Converge
Converge Converge
Page 22 of 30
9-3) Benefits of Process
The following benefits were identified by the attendees at the course:
Collaboration
Collaboration between departments Areas of expertise Buy in from whole team
Trust
Open forum Open discussion & dialogue Buy in from whole team
Diversity
Multi discipline look at the challenges Detailed review by all
Analysis
Good analysis of options Detailed review of all experts of options Able to quickly sort priority of options Evaluation of the different solutions Make selection process easier Clearer picture of options
Decision Making
Have accelerated the process Forced us to properly review options and rank them
Process
Structure Engaging process Focus on important versus urgent – comment from attendee ‘too busy’ but worthwhile as
would never have reviewed option in detail
Page 23 of 30
10-1) Optimise The Operating Strategy – Work Plan
With the focus on optimising the operating strategy it was decided to split the workshop into two groups to prepare an action plan.
Group A – Implement operating strategy from technical perspective Group B – Deploy the operating strategy within the organisation
Optimising the operating strategy was a change of philosophy from always having a surplus of energy with redundancy to safely matching supply of energy to demand.
The two groups brainstormed and then prepared an implementation plan for the next 12 months.
The two plans were prepared by brainstorming for each group against the following headings:
Implement operating strategy from technical perspective
Main seawater system Auxiliary seawater system Hydraulic power unit Power production Heat recovery
Deploy operating strategy within the organisation
Define ‘acceptable risk’ Enrol stakeholders System integration Documentation of operating strategy Training & execution
Outputs that were generated:
Cost of implementation – capital and start up (11-1) Financial savings generated from project (11-1) Action plan with key milestones for both implementing and deploying optimising the
operating strategy (11-2 & 11-3) Potential re-application of proposed solutions to other rigs (11-4) Additional steps for Stena Don (11-5)
10-2) Complexity of Each Area Identified
Page 24 of 30
A subjective review of all 5 areas was performed to gain an understanding of the complexity of each area and thus the level of risk associated with each area:
Area Level ofComplexity
Main seawater system 5Auxiliary seawater system 4Hydraulic Power Unit 2Power Production 3Heat Recovery 1
1 = Simplest 5 = Most Complex
Page 25 of 30
11-1) Financial Summary Review of Options
The following table was generated with input from the combined experience of all attendees and take account of implementing the changes from a technical and an organisational perspective for the technical areas identified involved in implementing the operating strategy.
Dollars 000’s CapitalExpenditure
SavingsTotal
SavingsFuel Maint OtherMain Seawater System 250 188 188Auxiliary Seawater System 0 60 0 0 60
250 248 0 0 248
Hydraulic Power Unit * 100 497 497Heat Recovery * 90 0 0 0 0
190 497 0 0 497
Power Production 100 540 500 0 1040540 1285 500 0 1785
Emission Tax ReductionNOx 50 50CO2 – Client 0 0 0 420 420
540 1285 500 470 2255
Internal Resources + 740 0 0 0 01280 1285 500 470 2255
*Need to do hydraulic power unit and power recovery together
+ Internal Resources165 man days (misc) @ 210 40Use of rib crew 200Misc promotional travel 150Project leader 150FMEA/DNV/QRA 200
Total 740
Key Facts
Pay back – 6 months Cashflow – 1163K
Page 26 of 30
11-2) Critical Path Schedule – Implement Operational Strategy from Technical Perspective
May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan’18 Feb’18 Mar’18 Apr’18MainSeawaterSystem
Single mode failure
Create FDS DPFMEA Review Spec USD’s Develop budget & estimated savings
Purchase system
Install hardware
FMEA review + trials.Siemens control system upgrade
Inform crews
Ensure supply of cooling water to drilling drive additional small pump
DNV review/approval of concept
Spec S/W change
As built update P&IP drawings, docs, manuals, tags
Monitor savings
Auxiliary Seawater System
Siemens to quote to develop FDS
Verify suitability of pump motors cables to run with VSD
Hydraulic Power Unit
Functional design spec
Purchase equipment + software
NUV software upgrade (design)
Implement upgrade.
Testing commissioning
Inform DNV
Develop budget
DNV approval of final install.
Inform crews.
Power Production
Siemens for FDS.Monitoring of fuel pressure.Bypass on fuel feed.
DPFMEA DNV concept approval
Budget Purchase As builts
2nd engine required.Thruster starting interlocks (inrush current)
DNV final approval
Inform crews of changes
Heat Recovery
Heat calcs for oil tank insulated & now insulated.Tie in new heat exchanger circulate oil from tank 2 new pumps redundancy
Internal design spec
Budget Purchase system
Install test commission
As builts Inform DNV
Page 27 of 30
11-3) Critical Path Schedule – Deploy Operating Strategy Within the Organisation
May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan’18 Feb’18 Mar’18 Apr’18
Acceptable Risk
Clarify DP Definition
Identify requirement class, client industrial flagstate etc.
DNV Class Hazop all OPS DP/drilling power Mgmnt
DP FMEADNV Approval
( 4M)
DP Trial WSUGSOP
Consult Crew PSA
Research( 3M)
Quantitative risk analysis
( 2M)EnrolStakeholders
SeniorManagement
Media PackBrochure
Client
Document Strategy
Level 2 Philospity
Level 4 System description
Level 5 RSWM’S Operation Parameters
Train & Execute
Give all a clear understanding of the goal/target & why (KPI’s)
Enrol champions
Workshops Follow up with results:-.Show Process.What we have done.What we have saved
-
System Integration
People & Process
Hardware
Page 28 of 30
11-4) Potential Re-Application of Proposed Solutions to Other Rigs
There was a lot of discussion about whether the steps included in optimising the operating strategy could be re-applied to other rigs.
It was agreed the following steps could be applied to other rigs:
A. Main and Auxiliary seawater system Drill Ships Stena Clyde Stena Spey
B. Hydraulic Power Unit Drill Ships
11-5) Stena Don Additional Steps for Optimising the Operating Strategy
A discussion took place about what further steps could be implemented on the Stena Don after optimising the operating strategy
Ventilation – VFD’s etc. Engines – stand by heating alternators
12-1) Comments on the Workshop
At the end of the workshop we asked for comments on the workshop split into 3 groups
Positive comments Negative comments Queries
Page 29 of 30
12-2) Positive Comments about Workshop
Clearer picture of options Have accelerated process Brought ideas into one place A very good way to collect expectations Make the ‘selection’ process easy Make people ‘leave the box’ Good to have outside influence to structure brainstorming Buy in from whole team Detailed review by all experts of options Brought mixed team together to brainstorm Good analysis of options Most of the solution can be fixed in house with a little support from external What alternatives we have Got background info for why the importance of saving fuel Good mix of personnel Collaboration between depts./areas of expertise Open forum/deferred judgement Engaging process Multi discipline look at challenges Evaluation of the different solutions Open discussion & dialogue Structure Good start from presented information Well presented and structured presenters Detailed review of all options with relevant experts Forced us to properly review options & rank them Give us outcome we weren’t necessarily expecting Good to discover new process Able to quickly sort priority of options
Page 30 of 30
12-3) Negative Comments about Workshop
Are we using open innovation Approach is based on known solution Have we missed ‘blue sky thinking’ Example used for workshop was well developed some steps in process skipped over Didn’t need/require the process to be ‘open’ Time consuming – but worth it Needs to have someone external – both good & bad Didn’t like the timeline No name tags No presentation from Siemens or Wertizilia Additional marine support would have been useful Didn’t look at other industries for ideas
12-4) Queries about Workshops
Maintain progress from today? Still uncertainty on DP requirements? Impact on safety codes/AOC? Need more input from class, IMCA, flagstate about DP requirements? Process handouts/slides? What do we do next? – Business case should be put forward? Now to follow up the final outcome? What about the other options? How to effectively generate ideas for open innovation? How to expose more people to the concept? How to streamline the process? What is the next step? Keeping group involved? Keeping up momentum?
13) Action Points Arising out of Workshop
Review and verify the outputs of the workshop to see how the ideas can be implemented to reduce emissions on The Stena Don.
Top Related