Attachmen J-9 Smart Grid STEG Maturity Model January2022.pdf

ANALYTICAL ANALYSIS

SMART GRID DOMAINS MATURITY

December 2021 ii

ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

AS IS Existing Maturity of "Smart Grid" domains

Characteristic Defines the capabilities or attributes of an organization associated with Smart Grid domains

Expected characteristic

Capabilities and characteristics that an organization must implement or exhibit to achieve the corresponding maturity level within a domain.

Informative characteristics Provide additional descriptive material that may provide some insight

EMEA Europe, Middle East, Africa

EnR Renewable Energies

LoB Line of Business

Maturity Levels Represent defined stages, described in terms of organizational capabilities and characteristics, of an organization’s progress toward achieving its smart grid vision

N1 Level 1 = Initiating

N2 Level 2 = Enabling

N3 Level 3 = Integrating

N4 Level 4 = Optimizing

N5 Level 5 = Pioneering

DMT Direction de Maitrise de la Technologie, STEG

Domains A domain is a logical grouping of smart-grid-related capabilities and characteristics.

SMR Strategy, Management and Regulation

OS Organization and Structure

GO Grid Operations

WAM Workforce and Asset Management

TECH Technology

CUST Customer

VCI Value Chain Integration

SE Society and Environment

SEI Software Engineering Institute of Carnegie Mellon University

SGMM Smart Grid Maturity Model

STEG Tunisian Electricity and Gas Company iii

Terme Français Anglais

AS IS Etat des lieux représentant la Maturité existante des domaines « Smart Grid »

Baseline Assessment representing existing maturity level across SGMM domains

N1 Initiation Initiating

N2 Activation Enabling

N3 Intégration Integrating

N4 Optimisation Optimizing

N5 Pionnier Pioneering

SGMM Modèle de Maturité « Smart Grid » Smart Grid Maturity Model

SMR Stratégie, Gestion et Réglementation Strategy, Management and Regulatory

OS Organisation et Structure Organization and Structure

GO Exploitation du Réseau Grid Operations

WAM Gestion des Actifs et des Effectifs Work and Asset Management

TECH Technologie Technology

CUST Clientèle Customer

VCI Intégration dans la Chaine de Valeur Value Chain Integration

SE Société et Environnement Societal and Environmental iv

TABLE OF CONTENT

1 INTRODUCTION - SMART GRID MATURITY MODEL “SGMM”

2 CONTEXT AND PURPOSE – BASELINE ASSESSMENT

3 METHODOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION

3.1 METHODOLOGY

3.2 ORGANIZATION

4 PROJECT TASKFORCE

5 PRESENTATION OF SMART GRID MATURITY

5.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

5.2 SUMMARY OF ANSWERS

5.3 MATURITY DASHBOARD

5.4 MATURITY PROFILE

5.5 CONCLUSION

APPENDIX 1 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX 2 SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMATION

APPENDIX 3 SCORES PER LEVEL

APPENDIX 4 SCOREBOARD BY DOMAIN

FIGURE 1 DESCRIPTION OF MATURITY LEVELS

FIGURE 2 DISTRIBUTION BY REGION (SEGMENT 2)

FIGURE 3 DISTRIBUTION OF ANSWERS BY INDUSTRY/TRADE SEGMENT (THE ENTIRE "SGMM"

COMMUNITY)

FIGURE 4 DISTRIBUTION OF ANSWERS BY INDUSTRY/TRADE SEGMENT (SEGMENT 2)

1 INTRODUCTION - SMART GRID MATURITY MODEL

“SGMM”

The Smart Grid Maturity Model (SGMM) is a management tool developed by electric utilities for electric utilities. The model provides a framework for understanding the current state of smart grid deployment and capability within an electric utility, and it provides a context for establishing future strategies and work plans to meet the challenges of grid modernization. It can also help organizations to bridge gaps between strategy and execution.

The SGMM helps create and communicate a common vision of the smart grid for internal and external stakeholders. An electric utility can use the SGMM to identify its smart grid target, assess where it is on the journey to implementing the smart grid, prioritize options, and measure success.

The "SGMM" makes it possible to create and communicate a common vision internally of the electricity company and to the various external stakeholders involved in the process.

The "SGMM" also makes it possible to:

- Establish a common vision for the roadmap towards the "Smart Grid".

- Evaluate the investment objectives and "Smart Grid" guidelines.

- Evaluate and prioritize opportunities and "Smart Grid" projects.

- Benchmark against the achievements and experiences of the "SGMM" community.

- Measure the progress of the strategy with qualitative and quantitative indicators.

- Evaluate the level of "Readiness" to adopt the "Smart Grid" in terms of resources available, infrastructure, strategic thinking, financial viability, impact and development.

Under "Smart Grid Tunisia" , "SGMM" is being used to identify the maturity level of STEG with regards to smart grid technology deployment and strategy development across:

Eight (8) domains

- Business domains

- Grid operations (GO)

- Workforce and Asset Management (WAM)

- Customer (CUST)

- Value Chain Integration (UCI)

- Domains related to technology and human resources

- Strategy, Management and Regulatory (SMR)

- Organization and Structure (OS)

- Technology (TECH)

- Society and Environment (SE)

And five (5) maturity levels

- Level 1: Initiating

- Level 2: Enabling

- Level 3: Integrating

- Level 4: Optimizing

- Level 5: Innovating

The "SGMM is developed to support utilities in defining a technical, organizational, and operational roadmap through a well-thought-out navigation process.

Figure 1 Description of maturity levels

• Complete automation of operations transformation

(functional and business) information (Cross

LOB)

2 CONTEXT AND PURPOSE – BASELINE ASSESSMENT

The Baseline assessment is an essential step to determine the maturity level associated to Smart Grid domains of the utility’s maturity levels. This analysis is based on a global context defined by the objectives of STEG's "Smart Grid" strategy:

- Improve the billing system and the provision of service to the end customer

- Reduce technical and non-technical losses and improve collection

- Optimize the load curve and the balance between production and demand

- Integration of renewable energy facilitated and made reliable

STEG has a roadmap to define the different technologies to be deployed through the different operations management systems; Thus, the AS-IS analysis will enable to measure the degree of progress of strategy objectives and to establish a baseline.

The AS-IS Analysis report provides a general view of “SGMM” domains and Maturity baseline assessment of the eight (8) domains.

STEG has defined and ranked the following ambitions driving their Smart Grid strategy (ranked from most important to least important):

• Customer participation

• Electrification (expanding access to power)

• Enabling new business opportunities

• Energy affordability

• Energy independence

• General environmental improvement objectives

• Improving financial performance

• Improving operational efficiency

• Improving reliability (including outage recovery improvements)

• Improving safety

• Improving security

• Integration of new energy sources and/or storage

• Macro-economic objectives (e.g., job creation, economic development)

• Peak demand reduction

• Reducing theft and/or other losses

3 METHODOLOGY AND ORGANIZATION

3.1 METHODOLOGY

this activity is designed based on a 5-step methodology:

1- Preparation: stakeholder mapping, designation of taskforce and preparation of activity plan

2- Kick-off: Organize introductory workshops and presentation of questionnaires

3- Shadowing support STEG teams, provide clarifications, address questions and requests, framing, contextualizing, etc.

4- Analysis: Consolidation of questionnaires responses and analysis

5- Synthesis: Synthesis of outcomes and presentation of results

The methodology is detailed in Appendix 1.

3.2 ORGANIZATION

The Maturity baseline assessment using “SGMM” consists of two key streams

- STREAM 1 – Capacity reinforcement

- STREAM 2 – Technical assistance and subject matter advisory

STREAM 1

The purpose of stream 1 is to define a capacity building program for STEG teams with a "learning by doing" approach and facilitate the dialogue between different departments.

In this context, "Smart Grid Tunisia" organized three (3) workshops to develop the capabilities of STEG teams to understand and utilize "SGMM" framework as well as “SGMM” product suite.

Workshop Date Number of hours Number of STEG participants

INTRODUCTION TO SMART GRID

MATURITY MODEL « SGMM »

15/06/2021 2 hours 21

PRESENTATION OF SGMM

PRODUCT SUITE

13/07/2021 4 hours 28

OVERVIEW OF

SCORING METHODOLOGY

02/09/2021 5 hours 26

The interactive nature of the workshops created a constructive and collaborative framework between different departments and enabled information sharing and knowledge transfer between participants, this also helped identify and pinpoint challenges encountered during the implementation of different projects and coordination shortcomings.

STREAM 2

Technical assistance consisted of contextualizing SGMM framework and product suite and adapt it to

STEG context. The latter enabled better understanding and acceptance from STEG and a realignment of expectations with regards to the results and findings expected from SGMM as a tool utilized by many utilities and how can SGMM supports the design and roadmapping of Smart Grid strategies and projets in the context of STEG and Tunisia.

During an intensive two weeks of works and consultations between members of the Taskforce, an exhaustive set of questions (177 questions) were debated and discussed in a collaborative approach to define the current situation of Smart Grid domains from an organizational, availability of ressources and management standpoint.

During the different sessions, the project team provided extensive support and managed the consolidation process to build the baseline Maturity assessment for eight (8) domains.

4 PROJECT TASKFORCE

STEG has mobilized a rounded taskforce from different departments to support the baseline assessment for Smart Grid Maturity.

Name Direction Email address

Nejib Sayari DMT (Director) nsayari@steg.com.tn

Taoufik Tissaoui DMT/DEAE ttissaoui@steg.com.tn

Radhouane Dakhli DMT/ Grid of the future rdakhli@steg.com.tn

Karim Trad DMT\Smart Grid ktrad@steg.com.tn

Mahran Khalfoun DMT\Smart Grid mkhalfoun@steg.com.tn

Imen Ben Salem DMT\Smart Grid iaidoudi@steg.com.tn

Lobna Jouirou DMT\Smart Grid ljouirou@steg.com.tn

Nesrine Mekki DMT\Smart Grid nmakki@steg.com.tn

Mohamed Amouri DMT\Smart Grid mhamouri@steg.com.tn

Abir Ayachi DCDI aayachi@steg.com.tn

Ines Taieb DCDI itaieb@steg.com.tn

Mohamed Barboura DCDI mbarboura@steg.com.tn

Mohamed Rafraf DCOSI mhrafraf@steg.com.tn

Khaled Zaibi DCOSI kzaibi@steg.com.tn

Mohamed Amine Aguir DCOSI maaguir@steg.com.tn

Habib Marsaoui DCRH hmarsaoui@steg.com.tn

Hend Ennaifer DCDI\DCM hennaifer@steg.com.tn

Ilhem Abderrahim DCDI\DCM iabderrahim@steg.com.tn

Nabil Mrad DCDI\DCM nmrad@steg.com.tn

Naouel Mrabet DCDI\DCM nmrabet@steg.com.tn

Mounir Houidhek DCDI\DCM mhouidhek@steg.com.tn

Zouheir Ghanmi DCDI\DCM zghanmi@steg.com.tn

Chawki Bahrini DCIT\ Cybersecurity cbahrini@steg.com.tn mailto:nsayari@steg.com.tn mailto:ttissaoui@steg.com.tn mailto:rdakhli@steg.com.tn mailto:ktrad@steg.com.tn mailto:mkhalfoun@steg.com.tn mailto:iaidoudi@steg.com.tn mailto:ljouirou@steg.com.tn mailto:nmakki@steg.com.tn http://4de9653a01d37ec66378739a315ebb0cbbb8ddad/mailto%3Amhamouri%40steg.com.tn%2520 mailto:aayachi@steg.com.tn mailto:itaieb@steg.com.tn mailto:mbarboura@steg.com.tn mailto:mhrafraf@steg.com.tn mailto:kzaibi@steg.com.tn mailto:maaguir@steg.com.tn mailto:hmarsaoui@steg.com.tn mailto:hennaifer@steg.com.tn mailto:iabderrahim@steg.com.tn mailto:nmrad@steg.com.tn mailto:nmrabet@steg.com.tn mailto:mhouidhek@steg.com.tn mailto:zghanmi@steg.com.tn mailto:cbahrini@steg.com.tn

Amani Mansour DCIT\ Cybersecurity ammansour@steg.com.tn

Haifa Gmati DCRTE hgmati@steg.com.tn

Ahmed El Beji DCRTE aelbeji@steg.com.tn

Mounira Msaddek DCSP mmsaddek@steg.com.tn

Wiem Ben Hadj Yahia DCSP wbenhadjyahia@steg.com.tn

Asma Zaidi DCSP azaidi@steg.com.tn

Afef Bennour DSE abennour@steg.com.tn

Meriem Bessibes DSE mbessibes@steg.com.tn mailto:ammansour@steg.com.tn mailto:hgmati@steg.com.tn mailto:aelbeji@steg.com.tn mailto:mmsaddek@steg.com.tn mailto:wbenhadjyahia@steg.com.tn mailto:azaidi@steg.com.tn mailto:abennour@steg.com.tn mailto:mbessibes@steg.com.tn

5 PRESENTATION OF SMART GRID MATURITY

5.1 GENERAL INFORMATION

US utilities represent 30% of SGMM results database; In recent years, Utilities in Asia have become more aware and The participation of American utilities remains dominant and in recent years utilities in Asia are beginning to be aware of the importance of a transversal evaluation conducted through the use of the

“SGMM” process.

Figure 2 Distribution by Region (Segment 2)

Figure 3 Distribution of answers by industry/trade segment (the entire "SGMM" community)

19%

30%32%

19%

EMEA US ASIE AUTRES

55%

1%

12%

6%

6%

6%

9%

5%

4%

6%

17%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Distribution

Commercialisation

Distribution, commercialisation

Transport

Transport, Distribution

Transport, Distribution, commercialisation

Production, Transport, Distribution

Production, Distribution

Production, Distribution, commercialisation

Production, Transport

Production, Transport, Distribution,…

In d u st ry S e gm e n t (b u si n e ss

Figure 4 Distribution of answers by industry/trade segment (Segment 2)

39%

17%

3%

3%

1%

15%

12%

5%

20%

45%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Production, Transport, Distribution,…

Production, Distribution, commercialisation

Production, Transport

Production, Distribution

Production, Transport, Distribution

Transport, Distribution, commercialisation

Transport, Distribution

Transport

Distribution, commercialisation

Distribution In d u st ry

S e gm e n t

(b u si n e ss

5.2 SUMMARY OF ANSWERS

The selection of responses is based on a participatory and collaborative approach, involving key departments from STEG.

The below list presents the summary of confirmed selected responses according to “SGMM” guidelines.

SMR-1.1 C SMR-2.1 B SMR-3.1 C SMR-4.1 A SMR-5.1 A

SMR-1.2 C SMR-2.2 B SMR-3.2 A SMR-4.2 B SMR-5.2 A

SMR-1.3 C SMR-2.3 B SMR-3.3 A SMR-4.3 A SMR-5.3 A

SMR-2.4 B SMR-3.4 B

SMR-2.5 D

SMR-2.6 B

OS-1.1 B OS-2.1 C OS-3.1 D OS-4.1 A OS-5.1 B

OS-1.2 A OS-2.2 A OS-3.2 A OS-4.2 A OS-5.2 A

OS-1.3 C OS-2.3 D OS-3.3 A OS-4.3 A OS-5.3 A

OS-2.4 C OS-3.4 A

OS-2.5 A OS-3.5 B

OS-3.6 B

GO-1.1 D GO-2.1 E GO-3.1 A GO-4.1 A GO-5.1 A

GO-1.2 D GO-2.2 B GO-3.2 A GO-4.2 A GO-5.2 A

GO-1.3 C GO-2.3 A GO-3.3 A GO-4.3 A

GO-1.4 C GO-2.4 D GO-3.4 A GO-4.4 A

GO-1.5 B GO-3.5 B GO-4.5 A

GO-3.6 A

WAM-1.1 B WAM-2.1 C WAM-3.1 B WAM-4.1 A WAM-5.1 A

WAM-1.2 B WAM-2.2 B WAM-3.2 B WAM-4.2 A WAM-5.2 A

WAM-1.3 A WAM-2.3 A WAM-3.3 B WAM-4.3 A

WAM-3.4 A WAM-4.4 A

WAM-3.5 B

WAM-3.6 A

WAM-3.7 A

WAM-1 WAM-2 WAM-3 WAM-4 WAM-5

WAM

GO-1 GO-2 GO-3 GO-4 GO-5

GO

OS

OS-1 OS-2 OS-3 OS-4 OS-5

SMR

SMR-1 SMR-2 SMR-3 SMR-4 SMR-5

TECH-1.1 D TECH-2.1 C TECH-3.1 B TECH-4.1 A TECH-5.1 A

TECH-1.2 C TECH-2.2 B TECH-3.2 A TECH-4.2 A TECH-5.2 B

TECH-1.3 C TECH-2.3 C TECH-3.3 A TECH-4.3 A

TECH-1.4 B TECH-2.4 D TECH-3.4 A TECH-4.4 A

TECH-1.5 C TECH-2.5 A TECH-3.5 A TECH-4.5 A

TECH-2.6 E TECH-3.6 D TECH-4.6 A

TECH-2.7 E

CUST-1.1 B CUST-2.1 D CUST-3.1 D CUST-4.1 B CUST-5.1 A

CUST-1.2 A CUST-2.2 B CUST-3.2 A CUST-4.2 A CUST-5.2 A

CUST-1.3 C CUST-2.3 B CUST-3.3 A CUST-4.3 B CUST-5.3 A

CUST-1.4 B CUST-2.4 D CUST-3.4 A CUST-4.4 A CUST-5.4 A

CUST-2.5 B CUST-3.5 B CUST-4.5 A CUST-5.5 A

CUST-2.6 B CUST-3.6 A CUST-4.6 B

CUST-3.7 D CUST-4.7 B

CUST-3.8 A

CUST-3.9 C

VCI-1.1 B VCI-2.1 B VCI-3.1 A VCI-4.1 A VCI-5.1 A

VCI-1.2 A VCI-2.2 A VCI-3.2 A VCI-4.2 A VCI-5.2 A

VCI-1.3 C VCI-2.3 A VCI-3.3 B VCI-4.3 A VCI-5.3 A

VCI-1.4 B VCI-2.4 A VCI-3.4 A VCI-4.4 A

VCI-1.5 A

SE-1.1 C SE-2.1 B SE-3.1 B SE-4.1 C SE-5.1 C

SE-1.2 C SE-2.2 E SE-3.2 A SE-4.2 A SE-5.2 A

SE-1.3 B SE-2.3 D SE-3.3 B SE-4.3 B SE-5.3 B

SE-1.4 B SE-2.4 A SE-3.4 A SE-4.4 A

SE-2.5 B SE-4.5 B

SE

SE-1 SE-2 SE-3 SE-4 SE-5

VCI

VCI-1 VCI-2 VCI-3 VCI-4 VCI-5

CUST-2 CUST-3 CUST-4 CUST-5

TECH-4 TECH-5

CUST

CUST-1

TECH

TECH-1 TECH-2 TECH-3

For level 1, B and C are predominantly the most selected answers which indicates a rather promising progress for the corresponding characteristics. (i.e., SMR-1.2 Experimental implementations of smart grid concepts are supported)

For level 2, A and B are predominantly the most selected answers which indicates a initiation effort for the corresponding characteristics. (i.e., TECH-2.2 Changes to the enterprise IT architecture that enable smart grid are being deployed)

For level 3, A is predominantly the most selected answers which indicates that no effort was initiated for the corresponding characteristics. (i.e., CUST-3.2 Two-way meter communication has been deployed for a significant number of customers.)

23% 38%

13% 18% 10%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E

Level 2 - Enabling

16% 34% 41%

9% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E

Level I - Initiation

59%

28%

4% 9% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E

Level 3 - Integration

For level 4, A is predominantly the most selected answers which indicates that no effort was initiated for the corresponding characteristics. (i.e., VCI-4.2 The organization has implemented portfolio optimization models that encompass available resources and real-time markets)

For level 5, A is predominantly the most selected answers which indicates that no effort was initiated for the corresponding characteristics. (i.e., SMR-5.1 Smart grid strategy capitalizes on smart grid as a foundation for the introduction of new services and product offerings)

The responses profile indicates that the Maturity level fluctuates between Level 1 and

Level 2 for most domains.

78%

19% 3% 0% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E

Level 4 - Optimizing

83%

13% 4% 0% 0%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

A B C D E

Level 5 - Pioneering

5.3 MATURITY DASHBOARD

The Maturity Dashboard provides an overview of maturity level and corresponding scoring for the eight (8) domains; to reach the level of maturity, 70% of the characteristics in that level must be satisfied (green color).

The STEG Maturity Dashboard indicates that SMR and GO domains are at Level 1 and remaining domains (OS/WAM/TECH/CUST/VCI/SE) are still at Level 0.

Overall, Maturity is below average compared to results from SGMM community and the same segment, Nevertheless, initiatives to move to a higher maturity levels are being put in place for several domains indicating a significant commitment from STEG.

Note: Details of scoring by level and by domain are listed in Appendices 3 and 4.

Satisfied level = required characteristics met

Significant progress is measured

Initial efforts initiated

No effort is initiated

5.4 MATURITY PROFILE

STEG maturity is considered below the average maturity compared to SGMM community and the same segment.

It is strongly recommended to maintain a certain consistency between maturity levels for the eight (8) domains.

Results presented below are a comparison between STEG maturity (in green) and community (in blue) / segment (in orange) maturity respectively.

5.5 CONCLUSION

“SGMM” provides a comprehensive set of tools, insights, and a clear process to build a well-rounded analysis of domains directly correlated with Smart Grid transformation, these domains span technical, functional and domains related to workforce development and stakeholder engagement.

Smart Grid Tunisia developed a simple 5-steps methodology to streamline the understanding and use of SGMM to build the baseline assessment for Smart Grid Maturity for the corresponding domains.

The Maturity profile presents a comprehensive analysis of changes required to streamline the adoption and deployment of Smart Grid technologies and the expectations set forth to put in place the resources, teams and coordination tools to achieve the objectives and results expected.

Finally, the Maturity baseline assessment consists a building block to determine the aspirations and ambitions for Smart Grid. This process concludes the capacity reinforcement stream to present

“SGMM” as a viable tool to support STEG achieve their Smart Grid roadmap efficiently and optimally.

APPENDIX 1 OVERVIEW OF METHODOLOGY

APPENDIX 2 SUMMARY OF KEY INFORMATION

Summary of key information (*)

Generation capacity (installed capacity) 5 653 MW

Peak Load 4 247 MW

Total energy supplied (energy flow on HV network) 20 352 000 MWh

Energy supplied to customers (Energy billed) 16 810 000 MWh

Total length of transmission lines 6 985 Km

Number of sub-stations or transformers 78 507

(*) Source: Annual Report 2019

Number of Clients (*)

Low voltage 4 122 600

Medium Voltage 19 748

High voltage 21

Total 4 142 369

Residential 3 106 244

Commercial 459 185

Industrial 50 214

Other 526 726

Total 4 142 369

(*) Source: STEG Annual Report 2019

Peak load constitutes

75% of the maximum generation capacity

The energy supplied to customers constitutes

83% of the total energy supplied (Distribution +

Transmission)

99.5% are Low

Voltage customers

73%

11%

1% 12%

Commercial Résidentiel Industriel Autres

Distribution

Investment costs (*)

Investments allocated to increase generation capacity and to improve the distribution network consist the largest part if the investment portfolio (71% of total investments)allocated.

Generation (Electricity) 185 MDT

Transmission (Electricity) 28 MDT

Distribution (Electricity) 128 MDT

Other (Electricity + Gas) 100 MDT

Total 441

(*) Year 2019 (Activity Report)

It should be noted that no investment or profit is recovered through Smart Grid programs (example of profit:

Investment costs recovery, reduction of OPEX, etc.)

Losses

Transmission Network losses 13,9%

Distribution Network losses

(Technical + Non-technical) 86,1%

Total 100% (= 3 542 GWh)

Percentage of Losses

Transmission Network losses (*) 2,4%

Distribution Network losses

(Technical + Non-technical) (**) 16,2%

Overall Loss Rate (Transmission

+ Distribution) 18,6% (= 3 542 GWh)

(*) Source: STEG Annual Report 2019

(**) Source: STEG data

42%

6%

29%

23%

Production (Electricité) Transport (Electricité)

Distribution (Electricité) Autres (Electricité + Gaz)

13,9%

86,1%

Pertes de Transport Pertes de distribution (Technique + Non-technique)

2,4%

16,2%

Pertes de Transport

Pertes de distribution (Technique + Non-technique

Quality of Service Indicators - Distribution Network

SAIDI 234 min

SAIFI 2,47

MAIFI Not used

Number of scheduled outages 2 726

Average duration of scheduled interruptions 190 min

Total annual number of operations team interventions on the network Not available

Annual greenhouse gas emission Not available

Source: STEG data

END - Distribution 14 147 MWh

END - Transport 555 MWh

TCE 17,13 min

- NDE= Non-Distributed Energy

- TCE=Equivalent interruption Time

Source: STEG Annual Report 2019

APPENDIX 3 SCORES PER LEVEL

LEVEL 1 INITIATION

SMR-1 0,80

OS-1 0,47

GO-1 0,76

WAM-1 0,37

TECH-1 0,62

CUST-1 0,50

VCI-1 0,34

SE-1 0,55

LEVEL 2 ENABLING

SMR-2 0,45

OS-2 0,48

GO-2 0,58

WAM-2 0,37

TECH-2 0,59

CUST-2 0,57

VCI-2 0,08

SE-2 0,56

LEVEL 3 INTEGRATION

SMR-3 0,28

OS-3 0,22

GO-3 0,03

WAM-3 0,17

TECH-3 0,18

CUST-3 0,27

VCI-3 0,08

SE-3 0,18

LEVEL 4 OPITIMIZING

SMR-4 0,10

OS-4 0,00

GO-4 0,00

WAM-4 0,00

TECH-4 0,00

CUST-4 0,17

VCI-4 0,00

SE-4 0,26

LEVEL 5 PIONEERING

SMR-5 0,00

OS-5 0,13

GO-5 0,00

WAM-5 0,00

TECH-5 0,15

CUST-5 0,00

VCI-5 0,00

SE-5 0,30

APPENDIX 4 SCOREBOARD BY DOMAIN

Domain 1 Strategy, Management and Regulatory

Domain 2 Organization and Structure

Domain 3 Grid Operations

Domain 4 Workforce and Asset Management

Domain 5 Technology

Domain 6 Customer

Domain 7 Value chain integration

Domain 8 Society and Environment

Page | 1

WORKSHOP EVALUATION REPORT

INTRODUCTION TO SMART GRID MATURITY MODEL « SGMM »

Date (MM/DD/YYYY) June 15th, 2021 Time From 14h30 to 16h30

Moderator Arwa Guesmi Location Virtual

Abbreviations List

Act

SGMM

STEG

Activity Smart Grid Maturity Model Tunisian Electric and Gas Utility (Société Tunisienne de l’Electricité et du Gaz)

1. Background

With reference to work-package 6 – Capacity Building and Knowledge Transfer – Act 3.2, The project team is organizing a series of workshops on the Smart Grid Maturity Model, a Management tool that was developed by Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute in 2007 and published in 2018.

The Smart Grid Maturity Model was used and tested by 384 utilities in 47 countries and most utilities have witnessed an improvement in Maturity for Smart Grids after utilizing the Smart Grid Maturity Model.

This tool supports the planning process for Smart grids roll-out and informs decision making to establish a common framework to improve performance and optimize investments using Smart Grid technologies.

This workshop is the 1st workshop in a series of sessions organized to build the capabilities of STEG team to understand and utilize the Smart Grid Maturity Model as a management and decision making tool that would accelerate their Smart Grid strategy.

2. Workshop Objectives

This workshop aims to achieve 3 objectives:

- Present the general framework of The Smart Grid Maturity Model (Fundamentals)

- Highlight the relevance and importance of the Smart Grid Maturity Model as a management and decision making tool for Smart Grids

- Explain the Methodology : how the Smart Grid Maturity Model can be utilized?

3. Workshop Outcomes

The expected outcomes from the workshop are:

- Build a preliminary understanding of the Smart Grid Maturity Model framework, fundamentals, methodology and application process

- Understand the relevance and importance of the Smart Grdi Maturity Model in supporting utilities to plan for their Smart Grid transformations

Page | 2

4. Attendees

Name Organization E-mail

Nejib Sayyari STEG nsayari@steg.com.tn / sayarinejib02@gmail.com

Taoufik Tissaoui STEG ttissaoui@steg.com.tn / taoufik.tissaoui@gmail.com

Radhouane Dakhli STEG rdakhli@steg.com.tn / dakhli.dmt@gmail.com

Abir Ayachi STEG abirzaghdaneayachi@gmail.com / aayachi@steg.com.tn

Mohamed Amouri STEG

Hend Ennaifer STEG

Jihène Mlika STEG

Karim Trad STEG karim.trad70@gmail.com

Khaled Zaibi STEG kzaibi@steg.com.tn

Lobna Jouirou STEG

Mahbouba Amairi STEG

Mahrane Khalfour STEG

Mohamed Barboura STEG mbarboura@steg.com.tn / medbarboura@yahoo.fr

Mounira Houidhek STEG

Mounira Msaddek STEG mmsaddek@steg.com.tn

Nabil Mrad STEG

Nesrine Mekki STEG

N Mrabet STEG

Wiem Ben Hadj Yahia STEG wbenhadjyahia@steg.com.tn

DCRTE STEG

Aziza Laouini STEG

Arwa Guesmi Deloitte AGuesmi@deloitte.tn

Chiheb Rebai Deloitte chiheb.rebai@supcom.tn

Ezzeddine Khalfallah Deloitte k.ezzedine@gmail.com

Asma Jaziri Deloitte ajaziri@Deloitte.tn

Khaoula Sghaier Deloitte ksghaier@deloitte.tn

Rob Russo E3I rvrusso@eeeinternational.com

Bonnie Norman E3I bnorman@eeeinternational.com

Marc Boillot E3I mboillot@eeeinternational.com

Michael Grossman E3I mgrossmann@eeeinternational.com

Diakite Aboubacar E3I aboubacar.diakite@eleves.enpc.fr

Alain Doulet E3I adoulet@eeeinternational.com mailto:nsayari@steg.com.tn mailto:ttissaoui@steg.com.tn mailto:rdakhli@steg.com.tn mailto:abirzaghdaneayachi@gmail.com mailto:karim.trad70@gmail.com mailto:kzaibi@steg.com.tn mailto:mbarboura@steg.com.tn%20/%20medbarboura@yahoo.fr mailto:mmsaddek@steg.com.tn mailto:wbenhadjyahia@steg.com.tn mailto:AGuesmi@deloitte.tn mailto:chiheb.rebai@supcom.tn mailto:k.ezzedine@gmail.com mailto:ajaziri@Deloitte.tn mailto:ksghaier@deloitte.tn mailto:rvrusso@eeeinternational.com mailto:bnorman@eeeinternational.com mailto:mboillot@eeeinternational.com mailto:aboubacar.diakite@eleves.enpc.fr mailto:adoulet@eeeinternational.com

Page | 3

5. Key Indicators

6. Screenshots

32 Participants in total

48% Of participants from STEG are Women 100%

Of Respondents to survey said they will participate in future workshops

21 Participants from STEG

Page | 4

7. Analysis of responses on Evaluation survey

52% of participants have completed the workshop evaluation survey which totals 11 responses. The respondents shared very positive feedback about the workshop from an organization, presentation and facilitation, content standpoint.

We also received recommendations and remakrs which will allow for an improved organization and presentation for future workshops.

91% of the respondants think that the objectives of the workshop were communicated clearly before the session.

52% of participants responded to the evaluation survey = 11 responses in total.

73% of respondents think that the objectives communicated before the workshop were achieved; 27% think the obbjectives were partially achieved.

91%

9%

Yes

No

52% 48%

Responded Did not respond

73%

27%

Yes

Partially

Page | 5

91% of respondents evaluated the session organization, presentation and facilitation quality as very good; 9% thought that the session was excellent.

73% of respondents evaluated the depth and relevance of technical content as very good; 27% thought it was good.

91% of respondents said that the workshop was very good.

73% of respondents said they never used the Smart Grid Maturity Model before; 18% have used it once.

55% of respondents think that the Smart

Grid Maturity Model is useful in general;

45% think that it is ueful but other models should be studied too.

64% of respondents think that the Smart

Grid Maturity Model is very relevant to

STEG Smart Grid Program.

91%

9%

Very good

Excellent

27%

73%

Good

Very good

18%

9%

73%

Yes, once

No, but I'm familiar with it

Never

9%

91% Good

Very good

45%

55%

Yes, but other models should be explored

Yes, definitely

18%

64%

18%

Somehow relevant

Relevant very relevant

Page | 6

8. Questions received from Participants

During Q&A, we received 17 questions which we addressed during the workshop.

Note: The questions are listed in their original language (French)

QUESTION ANSWER

Est-ce que vous pouvez donner une idée sur l'apport et les bénéfices des mesures de SGMM ?

1/ La partie mesure de la maturité sert à se situer, à identifier où on est et vers où on souhaite aller. Ainsi, définir le gap entre l’état actuel et l’état futur et tracer l'ensemble des caractéristiques et fonctionnalités pour évoluer dans la trajectoire de déploiement de Smart Grid.

2/ La matrice SGMM donne la garantie et le retour d'expérience des autres utilities (USA) qui ont déjà utilisé l’outil.

Comment exploiter le retour d'expérience des utilities.

Est-ce que pour chaque questionnaire il y a des actions à faire ?

1/ En analysant le scoring et le niveau de maturité de la STEG, on va se situer par rapport à l'ensemble des utilities qui ont utilisé l’outil SGMM et on va avoir une cartographie. Aux USA, il y a des DSOs de tailles semblables à un BCC, D’où l’intéret de voir sur quel axe ils ont travaillé.

Est-ce que l’outil SGMM prend en compte l'évolution technologique ?

1/ Oui, l'institut SEI est en train d'assurer la maintenance de SGMM et son évolution (on a passé de la version v1.1 vers v1.2), d'où l'intérêt de son utilisation, c'est un outil vivant.

Est-ce que l’opération du scoring est binaire?

1/ Non, l’outil scoring n’est pas binaire. On peut avoir 5 possibilités de réponses avec des pourcentages différents. Chaque question a sa spécificité.

Est ce qu'il y a des poids sur critères d’évaluation ?

1/ Pour attribué un niveau il faut avoir 70°% des caractéristiques requises. Il y a des caractéristiques optionnelles, quand on a les résultats, il y a un autre niveau de granularité, le niveau de la matrice est très précis.

Le modèle a un aspect stratégique, comment ça se manifeste ?

1/ L’aspect stratégie est un domaine couvert par SGMM. La stratégie est traitée comme une dimension impactée par la transformation technologique des réseaux intelligents.

Page | 7

Comment est-ce que l’outil SGMM aide à la prise de décision ?

Est-ce qu’il y a des exemples ?

1/ Exemple : la STEG veut mettre en place un programme de demande/réponse dans 3 ans dans un site pilote. A travers SGMM, la STEG peut définir les prérequis qu'elle doit mettre en place pour implémenter le programme demande/réponse. Si la STEG doit mettre en place 3 actions principales qui durent 5 ans et qui nécessitent un grand investissement, à travers cet outil, la STEG peut prendre la décision si c'est dans leur avantage de dépenser cet argent pour mettre en place le programme ou pas.

Est-ce que SGMM est un standard ? Est-ce qu’il y a d'autre modèles ?

1/ Le SGMM est bâti par un consortium des sociétés d'électricité américaines avec le support APQC, qui donne les approches les plus utilisés au monde.

2/ SEI définit des standards comme SMMI qui est orienté process, qualifie une entreprise pour avoir un niveau permettant de participer à des appels d'offres (qualification des processus de développement). SGMM n'est pas dédié pour des entreprises privés, le processus de certif existe mais la vocation de SGMM est d'être utilisé par les utilities pour avoir un tableau de bord, pour le déploiement. SGMM est un outil d'aide au déploiement Smart Grid (CMMI process).

3/ SGMM est utilisé pour que les utilities soient accompagnés dans la technologie smart grid sur les 8 domaines.

Est-ce que les questionnaires qu’on a déjà rempli vont nous aider dans ce sens?

1/ L’outil SGMM correspond à une analyse transverse (analyse des caractéristiques déjà établies dans les méta modèles), on ne peut pas modifier des caractéristiques, on l'utilise tel qu'il pour avoir la richesse du retour d'expérience) 2/ Les 3 questionnaires élaborés par Marc et Alain sont verticaux, on s'est focalisé sur 3 problématiques, clientèle, BCC et ENR.

3/ Les 2 approches sont complémentaires mais ne chevauchent pas.

Afin de mesurer la maturité, il faut reprendre l'exercice après chaque période ?

1/ Oui, c'est un outil de suivi et de tracking. Ce qui est recommandé est de faire l'analyse de l'existant pour avoir l'impact et la réalisation.

2/ Une cyclicité de 30 mois est recommandé. Il faut au moins 2 ans pour le refaire.

3/ Il nous donne 2 types d'analyse, AS IS et TO BE pour définir un roadmap

Afin de se comparer aux autres, est ce qu’il y a un standard à chaque utility ?

1/ Ça dépend de la volatilité de déploiement des utilites, quelques-uns sont rapides, d'autres publiques donc la mise en marche nécessite plus de temps.

Page | 8

Est-ce que la fréquence temporelle influe sur le score ?

1/ La fréquence de répétition dépend des contraintes.

2/ Non, ça n'intervient pas.

Sur le slide 10, Est-ce que vous pouvez clarifier plus le graphique ?

1/ Le graphique présente le pourcentage des différents types d'opérateurs qui utilisent SGMM. Il y a ceux qui se focalisent sur transport seulement, d’autres opérateurs qui interviennent dans le secteur sans être utility (agence gouvernementale de régulation, les ISOs, RTOs, opérateurs régionaux).

2/ L’impact de Smart Grid sur le métier distribution et commercialisation est grand, l’impact est moins fort sur transport et production.

Comment vous expliquez l'absence de SGMM en Europe ?

EMEA = Europe, Middle East and Africa La France utilise SGMM déjà

1/ UK, Denmark, La Belgique et autre pays Européens ont déjà utilisé cet outil, en UK, 7 utilities ont déjà déployé le SGMM.

Le modèle utilisé est majoritairement utilisé par pays Anglophones, est ce qu'il y aura des adaptations ?

1/ La correction entre les versions 1.1 et 1.2, c'est des caractéristiques qui répondent à des besoins des utilities, il y a une similitude entre réseau tunisien et nord-américain, avec des problématiques liés aux déploiement de technologie, de modernisation du réseau contemporain.

Est-ce qu’il y a des critères de sélection sur les caractéristiques optionnelles ?

1/ Les paramètres optionnels sont importants pour contextualiser le scoring derrière. Il y a des caractéristiques qui seront validées avec un score de 100%.

Pour l’engin de calcul, est ce qu’il y a derrière ce modèle un processus automatique de suivi pour faciliter les calculs.

1/ L’engin de calcul est développé par SEI, sans licence à acheter, il faut remplir le Compass Survey, puis SEI renvoi le calcul. C’est un atout très important.

PRESENTATION - SMART GRID MATURITY MODEL « SGMM » QUESTIONNAIRES

Date (MM/DD/YYYY) July 13th, 2021 Time From 8h00 to 12h00

Moderator and Organizer

Arwa Guesmi Location Virtual team is organizing a series of workshops on the Smart Grid Maturity Model, a Management tool that was developed by Carnegie Mellon University – Software Engineering Institute in 2007 and published in 2018.

The Smart Grid Maturity Model was used and tested by 384 utilities in 47 countries and most utilities have witnessed an improvement in Maturity for Smart Grids after utilizing the Smart Grid Maturity Model.

This tool supports the planning process for Smart grids roll-out and informs decision making to establish a common framework to improve performance and optimize investments using Smart Grid technologies.

This workshop is the 2nd workshop in a series of sessions organized to build the capabilities of STEG

This workshop aims to achieve the following objectives:

- Present questionnairs : expected and informative characteristics, domain specific questions and general questions

- Give an overview of questionnaires completion exercice guidelines and best practices

- Enable STEG teams to have a simplified understanding on SGMM questions and characteristics and conduct the exercice efficiently

- STEG teams understand domain specific questions, expected and informative characteristics

- STEG teams are enabled to conduct the exercice with respect to SGMM guidelines and best practices

Nejib Sayyari STEG nsayari@steg.com.tn / sayarinejib02@gmail.com

Taoufik Tissaoui STEG ttissaoui@steg.com.tn / taoufik.tissaoui@gmail.com

Radhouane Dakhli STEG rdakhli@steg.com.tn / dakhli.dmt@gmail.com

Abir Ayachi STEG abirzaghdaneayachi@gmail.com / aayachi@steg.com.tn

Mohamed Amouri STEG mamouri@steg.com.tn

Hend Ennaifer STEG hennaifer@steg.com.tn

Karim Trad STEG karim.trad70@gmail.com

Khaled Zaibi STEG kzaibi@steg.com.tn

Lobna Jouirou STEG jouiroulobna123@gmail.com

Mahrane Khalfoun STEG mkhalfoun@steg.com.tn

Mounir Houidhek STEG mhouidhek@steg.com.tn

Mounira Msaddek STEG mmsaddek@steg.com.tn

Nabil Mrad STEG nmrad@steg.com.tn

Nesrine Mekki STEG nmakki@steg.com.tn

Naoufel Mrabet STEG nmrabet@steg.com.tn

Wiem Ben Hadj Yahia STEG wbenhadjyahia@steg.com.tn

Haifa Gmati STEG hgmati@steg.com.tn

Mohamed Rafraf STEG mhrafraf@steg.com.tn

Afef Bannour STEG abennour@steg.com.tn / afefidani@gmail.com

Ines Taieb STEG itaieb@steg.com.tn

Ahmed El Beji STEG aelbeji@steg.com.tn

Rafik Bezzaouia STEG rbezzaouia@steg.com.tn

Meriem Bessibes STEG mbessibes@steg.com.tn

Radhouane Damergi STEG rdamergi@steg.com.tn

Med Amine Aguir STEG

Aidoudi STEG

Malek STEG

Oussama STEG

Arwa Guesmi Deloitte AGuesmi@deloitte.tn

Chiheb Rebai Deloitte chiheb.rebai@supcom.tn

Ezzeddine Khalfallah Deloitte k.ezzedine@gmail.com

Asma Jaziri Deloitte ajaziri@Deloitte.tn

Khaoula Sghaier Deloitte ksghaier@deloitte.tn

Rob Russo E3I rvrusso@eeeinternational.com

Aaron Snyder EnerNex aaron@enernex.com mailto:nsayari@steg.com.tn mailto:ttissaoui@steg.com.tn mailto:rdakhli@steg.com.tn mailto:abirzaghdaneayachi@gmail.com mailto:mamouri@steg.com.tn mailto:hennaifer@steg.com.tn mailto:karim.trad70@gmail.com mailto:kzaibi@steg.com.tn mailto:jouiroulobna123@gmail.com mailto:mkhalfoun@steg.com.tn mailto:mhouidhek@steg.com.tn mailto:mmsaddek@steg.com.tn mailto:nmrad@steg.com.tn mailto:nmakki@steg.com.tn mailto:nmrabet@steg.com.tn mailto:wbenhadjyahia@steg.com.tn mailto:hgmati@steg.com.tn mailto:mhrafraf@steg.com.tn mailto:abennour@steg.com.tn mailto:afefidani@gmail.com mailto:itaieb@steg.com.tn mailto:aelbeji@steg.com.tn mailto:rbezzaouia@steg.com.tn mailto:mbessibes@steg.com.tn mailto:rdamergi@steg.com.tn mailto:AGuesmi@deloitte.tn mailto:chiheb.rebai@supcom.tn mailto:k.ezzedine@gmail.com mailto:ajaziri@Deloitte.tn mailto:ksghaier@deloitte.tn mailto:rvrusso@eeeinternational.com mailto:aaron@enernex.com

LINK TO SURVEY CLICK HERE

35 Participants in total

35% Of participants from STEG are Women 100%

Of Respondents to survey said they will participate in future workshops

28 Participants from STEG https://dsurvey.deloitte.fr/#/survey/60e314dfb0cf090018c35c67

6. Analysis of responses on Evaluation survey

40% of participants have completed the workshop evaluation survey which totals 14 responses. The respondents shared very positive feedback about the workshop from an organization, presentation and facilitation, content standpoint.

We also received recommendations and remarks which will allow for an improved organization and presentation of future workshops.

100% of the respondants think that the objectives of the workshop were clearly communicated before the session.

40% of participants responded to the evaluation survey = 14 responses in total.

64% of respondents think that the objectives communicated before the workshop were achieved; 36% think the obbjectives were partially achieved.

40%

60%

Responded Did not respond

100%

Yes No

64%

36%

Yes Partially

79% of respondents evaluated the session organization, presentation and facilitation quality as very good; 21% thought that the session was excellent.

79% of respondents evaluated the depth and relevance of technical content as very good; 21% thought it was excellent.

57% of respondents think that the duration of the workshop was short with comparaison to content presented and they wish it was extended to explain more topics, 43% think that the duration is good and aligned with proposed content.

The respondants had very positive feedback about the presenters and their capacity to engage with participants and facilitate the session.

71% think that the interaction with participants was very good.

86% of respondents said that the workshop was very good overall.

100% of respondents confirmed their interest to participate in future workshops.

79%

21%

Very good Excellent

79%

21%

Very good Excellent

43%

57%

Duration is aligned with proposed content

Duration should be extended to explain more topics

7%

86%

7%

Good Very good Excellent

71% 64%

50% 57%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Good interaction with participants

Structured speech and ideas

Clear presentation

Full command of workshop topic

100%

Yes No

Before the workshop, did you know that the Smart Grid vision impacts diferent business functions within the organisation?

64% of respondents said that STEG Smart Grid vision covers some business functions.

Before the workshop, were you aware of the required functional characteristics and domains for Smart Grids across different business functions?

50% were partially aware, 36% were not aware.

50% of respondents think that the SGMM framework covers all aspects to develop Smart Grid strategies, 36% think it offers a comprehensive understanding and 14% think that it important but not a requirement.

Do you think you need hands-on support to complete the SGMM questionnaires?

29% think that hands-on support is necessary, 64% think that hands-on support is necessary for some domains.

After the workshop, do you think STEG Smart Grid vision needs to be reviewed?

57% said some objectives need to be reviewed, 36% think that the vision should be reviewed and further developed.

Will you use SGMM questionnaires in the future?

57% said yes they will use it again, 43% said maybe.

36%

50%

14%

No

Partially, domains and functions

Completely, all domains and functions

64%

36%

STEG Smart Grid vision covers some business functions

STEG Smart Grid vision is scross-cutting and covers all business functions

50% 36%

14%

Definitely, the SGMM framework covers all aspects to develop Smart Grid strategies

The SGMM framework offers a comprehensive view and understanding to develop Smart Grid strategies

Partially, the SGMM framework is important but not required to develop Smart Grid strategies

43%

57%

Maybe Yes

7%

57%

36%

No

Partially, the objectives need to be reviewed against Smart Grids functional requirements

Yes, the vision should be reviewed and further developed

64%

29%

7%

Partially, hands-on support needed for few domains and functions

Yes, hands-on support for all domains and functions is necessary

No, The process is very clear, hands-on support is not needed

Participants also shared some comments and feedback.

Do you have any recommendations to improve future workshops and online sessions ?

Any other feedback or recommendations ?

We propose to organize another workshop

1- There seems to be some ambiguities and discrepancies in understanding the questions by participants, we hope that the summary guide will provide more context and clarifications, otherwise, hands-on support is necessary.

2- There needs to be a list of directives for each domain in order to have more accurate and precise responses to the SGMM questions and organize hands-on session to support the process.

The duration of the workshop needs to be aligned with proposed content

There should be a deadline to finalize the AS IS assessment using

SGMM framework.

We wish to see more business cases and ractical examples during the workshops (benchmark results, etc.)

More practical examples

More time for questions and shorter answers There should be an internal coordination at the level of STEG for this process

Very informative and well organized session

Nothing to report, thank you to participants and presenters

7. Questions received from Participants

During Q&A, we received 17 questions and comments which we addressed during the workshop.

QUESTIONS/ COMMENTS ANSWERS

Est-ce qu'on est capable de préparer des exigences convenables pour le Smart Grid puisqu'on planifie à faire une rénovation des BCCs ?

Les concepts sont déjà là pour pouvoir déployer une technologie pour la gestion du réseau.

À une étape ultérieure, on va appuyer les collègues STEG pour écrire le cahier de charges.

Pour situer cette activité dans le cadre du projet, nous sommes en phase SGMM-1. Actuellement, on mesure le degré de maturité de l'état des lieux de la STEG, après il y aura une autre évaluation SGMM-2 en termes d'ambitions (la cible). Le Gap analysis va identifier l'écart entre le niveau de maturité entre SGMM-1 et SGMM-2 et les gaps à remplir à travers le projets (use cases).

Est ce que dans le pilote on arrivera à un niveau de maturité cible?

Par exemple, pour le domaine GO, avec les 5 niveaux de maturité définis, est ce qu'on peut arriver à un niveau de maturité avancé pendant la phase projet pilote?

1/ Il faut que le questionnaire traduit la réalité des choses (état des lieux) 2/ Si on identifie un domaine spécifique, on pourra tester deux ou trois use cases pour démontrer la valeur et les bénéfices amenés par la technologie et définir les KPI pour faire les mesures et les évaluations nécessaires 3/ On peut toujours accélérer la reflexion et anticiper le degré de maturité dans le site pilote.

Pour passer d'un degré de maturité à un autre, il faut définir les exigences nécessaires et répondre aux caractéristiques requises qui défnit le ou les domaines 4/Si les use cases déployés permettent de définir des KPIs qui répondrent aux charactéristiques requises pour un domaine, on peut dans ce cas passer au niveau de maturité adéquat. La définition des KPIs et exigences ainsi que l'achèvement des caractéristiques requises permettent l'évolution en maturité pour un domaine ou plusieurs domaines fonctionnels.

Est-ce qu'il y a des bonnes pratiques pour le passage d'un niveau à un niveau plus élevé?

SGMM est un mirroir qui nous permet de de s'identifier par rapport aux autres (reste du monde = communauté des utilities). certes, il ya des recommendations (la moyenne mondiale est entre le niveau 2 et le niveau 3). La maturité nécessite des investissements et dispositions à tous les niveaux pour génèrer de la valeur. On peut connaitre les aspirations (TO BE) mais le plan d'action doit répondre aux objectifs de la stratégie de la STEG et au timeline des investissements.

Le bechmarking est recommandé afin de se positionner par rapport aux autres entreprises similaires.

1/Le Benchmarking va couvrir les tendences en termes d'innovation technologique et aussi présenter les résultats de la communauté "utilities" en terme de Maturité après l'utilisation du

SGMM.

2/ Pour passer d'un niveau à un autre il faut tout d'abord répondre à toutes les caractéristiques requises du niveau précédent. exemple (pour passer du Niv 1 au Niv 2, il faut que les caractéristiques requises du Niveau 1 et le Niv 2 seront toutes atteintes sans faute).

3/ Le benchmark couvre l'aspect technologique, le retour d'expérience au niveau du déploiement, etc.

Les nouveaux BCC doivent étre outillés de caractéristiques techniques et fonctionnelles permettant l'atteinte d'un niveau de maturité cible (plus élevé que le niveau de l'état des lieux).

Une fois le questionnaire est rempli, est ce que les domaines d'ordre stratégique avec un degré de maturité initiation (niveau 1) vont impacter les domaines techniques qui ont un niveau de maturité plus élevé?

1/ Le SGMM est un outil pour caractériser la vision Smart Grid de la société d'électricité. Le SGMM définit 8 domaines qui caractérisent la maturité au sein de l'organisation à travers tous les métiers et fonctions.

2/ La cartographie est parlante, la liaison entre les domaines va apparaître eventuellement

Page | 9 lors de l'exercise de remplissage des questionnaires.

3/ Les choix des réponses SGMM doivent être harmonisés.

Est ce qu'il y a des bonnes pratiques pour booster les niveaux de maturité des domaines SMR et OS pour ne pas impacter le process d'évaluation ?

1/ Les réponses seront révélatrices et vont permettre d'avoir des idées sur les corrections et les objectifs à prioriser.

2/ La façon dont les questions sont posées donne une idée sur l'orientation et les axes de reflexion.

3/ La recommendation est de faire participer tout le monde.

4/ Le Niveau 5 ne veut pas dire l'état optimal dans l'absolu. Le SGMM recommande que la utility qui fait cet exercise contextualise par rapport ce qui est permissible et réglementé dans le pays et la région. Dans certains cas, le Niv 4 ou 5 induit plus d'effet négatifs que positifs.

Par rapport à la réponse aux questionnaires, est ce qu'il y a possibilité d'inclure plusieurs noms?

Dans la deuxième feuille du fichier Excel (Questionnaires), Il y a un champ ou toute personne qui ont répondu aux questionnaires peut entrer ses informations.

Est-ce que vous recommendez que la personne soit sûre de connaître la bonne réponse?

Il est recommandé que celui qui répond à la question soit sûr à 85%.

Est-ce que chacun doit répondre tout seul, ou on nécessite une réponse collective?

L'objectif est d'avoir une version finale la plus proche de la réalité. On n'est pas dans un exercice statistique. Il faut trouver le mécanisme interne pour fiabiliser l'information.

A mon avis il faut constituer une équipe STEG pour répondre au questionnaire et remplir tous les domaines

Tout a fait, c'est l'objectif de l'exercise.

Je n'ai pas trouvé le moteur d'évaluation. Est-ce que ça va être présenter/expliquer à une étape ultérieure?

Nous sommes dans la phase d'initiation, puis on entamera la phase d'accompagnement pour le remplissage des questionnaires.

Ou sont introduites les caratéristiques optionnelles?

Les caractéristiques optionnelles sont cachées dans les réponses.