stenachallengedatabase.blob.core.windows.net... · Web viewNew Engines – Marc Swinton,...

of 30

Stena Don

Emissions Reduction

Innovation Workshop

Aberdeen19th – 20th April 2017

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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?

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?

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

of 30


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

of 30


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

of 30


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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

stenachallengedatabase.blob.core.windows.net... · Web viewNew Engines – Marc Swinton,...

Documents

Transcript of stenachallengedatabase.blob.core.windows.net... · Web viewNew Engines – Marc Swinton,...