Oliver Wall

(1)

AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL

FOR PROCESS INDUSTRIES – A DESIGN SCIENCE

APPROACH

Master’s Thesis for MSc, Double Degree Operations and Supply Chain Management

Student Number (Groningen) S3609081

Student Number (Newcastle) 130288343

10

th

_{December 2018}

Supervised by:

(2)

Abstract

Energy management is becoming an increasing priority for the process industry as they look to reduce costs, comply with regulation and improve their sustainability image. Despite the availability of several resources for organisations to establish an energy management system, a gap exists between literature and practical implementation. While a number of recent Energy Management Maturity Models have been proposed, none have yet to fully cover all aspects required to overcome the barriers to successful energy management in process industries. This design science research is completed to provide an improved model to guide organisations through energy management system implementation. New elements are derived from energy management literature, including the recently published ISO50001:2018, and industry practice is researched through multiple interviews to identify how organisations can overcome challenges in energy management. Practices are aligned with the Capability Maturity Model Integration criteria, and combined with practices previously defined to create a generalizable and comprehensive design. The model is validated through an assessment workshop with industry experts and concluded that the model is a comprehensive and practically useful tool for energy management improvement in the PI.

Acknowledgements

(3)

Abbreviations

AIChE American Institute of Chemical Engineers KPI Key Performance Indicator CMMI Capability Maturity Model Integration MM Maturity Model

EM Energy Management PDCA Plan-Do-Check-Act

EMMM Energy Management Maturity Model SEU Significant Energy User EnMS Energy Management System TSM Towards Sustainable Mining

Tables

Table 2.1: Requirements of an Energy Management System... 4

Table 2.2: Examination of Existing Maturity Models ... 9

Table 3.1: Interview Participant Description ... 14

Table 4.1: Required Elements for an Energy Management Maturity Model ... 17

Table 4.2: Case Company Maturity Level Structure (Asset Management) ... 22

Table 4.3: Maturity Levels identified by Finnerty et al. (2017) ... 23

Table 4.4: Maturity Levels Identified by Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016) ... 23

Table 4.5: CMMI Maturity Levels ... 24

Table 4.6: Comparison of Maturity Level Structures ... 24

Table 5.1: Organisation of necessary elements ... 28

Table 5.2: Maturity Level Structure ... 29

Table 5.3: Energy Management Maturity Model ... 37

Table 10.1: Description of Process Industry Subsectors (Adapted from Abdulmalek et al., 2006) ... 52

Table 10.2: Comparison of CMMI Maturity Level Representations ... 53

Table 10.3: Coding Tree and Sample Phrases ... 58

Table 10.4: Case Company Maturity Level Criteria ... 60

Table 10.5: Details of Interview Participants ... 61

Table 10.6: Explanatory Description of Model Elements (Adapted from ISO (2018)) ... 62

Figures

Figure 2.1: Literature Gap ... 10

(6)

1

1.0 Introduction

The industrial sector is a significant contributor to the total energy consumption of the European Union. The sector is responsible for 25.3% of total energy usage (Eurostat, 2017) in addition to 12.8% of CO2 emissions (World Bank Group, 2014). Following the agreement of the Kyoto Protocol and

Copenhagen Accord, national policy makers have increased their focus on the reduction of energy usage. Subsequently, in addition to the rising costs of energy purchase, industry has come under increasing legal pressure to increase process efficiency. Therefore, energy management (EM) practice in industry has become an increasing priority (Schulze et al., 2016), with firms examining in great detail processes that can be adjusted to gain greater energy efficiency.

To achieve this, using an Energy Management System (EnMS) has become increasingly popular, enabling organisations to benchmark against competitors, and monitor and control consumption. Several sources of reference are available to companies to build EM policies, including standards and industrial guidelines (ISO, 2011; O’Sullivan, 2011). However, these often do not provide energy managers with clear guidance on decision making and identification of best-practices. While such literature exists for the purpose of comparing consumption between industrial sectors and even between nations at an aggregated level, guidance for comparison at a sector level or process level is scarce (Bunse et al., 2011). This lack of provision leads to poor implementation of EnMSs and therefore practices do not realise their full potential. Consequently, initiatives are often abandoned without creating economic value.

(7)

2 This research is conducted alongside Royal HaskoningDHV, who will be referred to throughout this work as the “case company”. As an extension to their current business portfolio, the case company requires the development of a tool for the assessment and competence building of external organisations. The case company currently has consultancy experience in EM and can therefore be used to identify the requirements for an improved assessment tool and guide research into industry practice. With these defined requirements a generalizable tool can be developed that meet the practical needs of industry. To understand the state of EM within the PI, multiple interviews are completed with five PI organisations. This provides an overview of practices and industry specific process improvement techniques.

In summary, the purpose of this research is to develop an MM that overcomes specific challenges towards EM in PIs. Identifying industry best practices and incorporating them into a new model will improve upon the validity and practical usability of existing EMMMs. Subsequently, the overarching question that drives this research is “How can energy maturity models be tailored for use in process industries?”. This provides both a theoretical contribution of addressing barriers between theory and practice, and the practical contribution of increasing MM usability by industry. This question will be addressed through a design science methodology, following the regulatory cycle provided by Wieringa (2009).

(8)

3

2.0 Literature Background

As energy consumption contributes to up to 60% of operating costs in PIs (Bunse et al., 2011), organisations are increasingly using EnMSs. This literature review examines the benefits of EM, particularly in the context of PIs and describes how MMs can be used to develop an EnMS. The section closes by examining the limitations of existing MMs and the direction of this research.

2.1 Energy Management

While definitions differ, it is clear that the primary goal of EM is to minimise costs associated with energy usage. Capehart et al. (2006), describe that successful implementation of EM can increase the competitive advantage of an organisation. To maximise EM benefits, organisations should use a whole system perspective to ensure all interconnected activities are considered simultaneously (VDI, 2007), and recognise that one-off projects should not be confused with a systematic EM approach (Piper, 2009). Thus, organisations can implement an EnMS. EnMSs can take the form of documented procedural systems which enable improvement of an organisation’s energy efficiency and sustainability (Carbon Trust, 2011). While, again, there is no consensus on the definition of management systems, Finnerty et al. (2017, p. 2) provides: “an ‘Energy Management System (EnMS)’ outlines the strategic steps required to implement a systematic process for continually improving energy performance.” Organisations with a well-structured EnMS are able to utilise them for significant benefits when applied in a continuous manner (Piper, 2009).

(9)

4

2.1.1 Requirements of an Energy Management System

As guidance for organisations to implement EnMSs, two sources are available as reference: academic literature and industrial guidelines. Academic literature provides an indication to the minimum requirements of an EnMs, but seldom includes guidance on implementation. Therefore, secondly, practitioners may turn to industrial guidelines such as those presented by ISO (2018) or the Carbon Trust (2011). These works demonstrate the breadth of activities organisations must complete to effectively manage energy consumption. It is not only sufficient to monitor energy use (Thollander & Ottosson, 2010), but organisations must also have established policies and prioritise energy management (Abdelaziz et al., 2011). More recent works, particularly ISO (2018) and Schulze et al. (2016), have broadened the minimum requirements of an EnMS. While previous works focused on the internal aspects of an organisation, ISO (2018) considers a broader external context emphasising the availability of opportunities outside of the manufacturing process. The industrial guidelines detailed in this work are identified as being well recognised and used within the PI (Finnerty et al. 2017; ISO, 2017; AIChE, 2008). Table 2.1 shows the reported minimum requirements of an EnMS and associated references which will be used as a basis for identifying improvements to EMMMs.

TABLE 2.1:REQUIREMENTS OF AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM

Energy Management Literature Industrial Guidelines

C h ri sto ff e rse n e t al . ( 2006) M cKan e e t al . (200 8 ) Th o llan d e r & O tto sson , ( 2010 ) A b d e lazi z e t al ., (2011 ) A te s & D u rakb asa, (2012 ) Sc h u lze e t al . (2016) TSM ( 2014) C ar b o n Tr u st (2011) AIC h E ( 2008) IS O ( 2018) EnMS Requirement

Senior Management Commitment ● ● ● ●

External Stakeholders ● ● ●

Assigned Responsibility ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Organisational Awareness ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Training ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Targets and Objectives ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Maintain Records ● ● ● ● ●

Energy Audit ● ● ● ● ●

Key Performance Indicators ● ● ● ● ●

(10)

5

2.2 Process Industries

PIs are typically defined as those concerned with the manufacture of producing non-discrete products such as liquids, pulps, gases, and powders (Abdulmalek et al., 2006). These are generally produced through the use of process manufacturing defined as “production that adds value by mixing, separating, forming, and/or performing chemical reactions.” (Abdulmalek et al., 2006). This manufacturing process is regarded as process flow production defined as “A production approach with minimal interruption in the actual processing in any one production run or between runs of similar products” (Cox & Blackstone, 1998). Continuous processing plants are often characterised by the use of inflexible and capital-intensive technologies. (Slack et al., 2013). Example industries defined as PIs are given by Abdulmalek et al. (2006). These include chemicals, steel, textile and food & beverage manufacture. See Appendix A for a comprehensive description.

Comparisons can be drawn between the processes in these example industries. These comparisons can be presented as the energy profile and the related equipment. An examination of PI equipment is provided by Holloway et al., (2012), identifying valves, pumps, and pipes used for transportation of material both inside the process site and to end users. In addition, Holloway et al., (2012) provide more complex, and high energy consuming, equipment used within the industry, such as mixers and boilers. For comparison of energy consumption profiles, the US Energy Information Administration (2016) defines food, pulp and paper, chemicals and iron and steel as energy intensive industries. Basic chemicals, for example, accounts for 19% of total Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) industrial sector energy consumption, Iron and Steel, 10% and Food 4%, (US Energy Information Administration, 2016). This high level of energy consumption demonstrates the benefits provided by an implementation of an EnMS.

2.2.1 Drivers and Barriers to Energy Management in Process Industries

Key drivers across all industries towards implementing EnMSs have been identified by Massoud et al. (2010) to be saving costs, improving productivity, improving the company image and enhancing relationships with stakeholders. Schulze et al. (2011) identify that the recent increase in energy prices have been a main motivating factor in the increased awareness of EM in addition to the availability of subsidies for the reduction of CO2 and energy usage (Walsh & Thornley, 2012).

(11)

6 proven technologies restricts the willingness to replace equipment. Similarly, the high capital facilities cost (Rudberg et al., 2013) means organisations turn their attention to external opportunities including partnerships with suppliers for technology development. A further industry barrier to improvement is knowledge development. Massoud et al. (2010) identify a lack of in-house knowledge on environmental issues and available technologies. This is reiterated by Walsh & Thornley (2012) who identified 70% of respondents to their survey cited “a lack of awareness of new or existing technologies”. Therefore, developing organisations rely on knowledge and skills of other sectors which do not necessarily align with the organisation’s own objectives. Uncertainties regarding baselining are also often present. An energy baseline is defined as “quantitative reference(s) providing a basis for comparison of energy performance” (ISO, 2014, p. 2). Baselining is a particular problem for PIs in two ways: the uncertainty of future energy prices can result in viable projects being rejected (Dyer et al., 2008). In addition, the cyclic nature of some PI demand requires examination of seasonality and external contributing factors (Lager, 2010) which should be included into a baseline period. As common with all industries, PIs also find barriers in management commitment, lack of funding, lack of priority for EM (Rohdin et al., 2007), communication, and lack of market interest (Walsh & Thornley, 2012).

2.3 Maturity Models

The concept of MMs is attributed to work completed by Crosby (1979) to simplify process improvement within the software industry. The initial model characterised practices along five stages of maturity, providing a simple but effective tool for process analysis and improvement towards best practice. To understand the concept of organisational maturity, Finnerty et al. (2017, p. 4) defines maturity as “…a metric to evaluate capabilities of an organisation regarding a certain discipline.” Pullen (2007, p. 9) defines an MM as “…a structured collection of elements that describe the characteristics of effective processes at different stages of development. It also suggests points of demarcation between stages and methods of transitioning from one stage to another”.

(12)

7 While MMs are often mapped to industrial standards, there is distinct difference between the two. Industrial standards, for example those created by the International Organization for Standardization (ISO), provide a threshold by which an organisation is certified or fails. MMs, however, provide an organisation with an opportunity for external benchmarking and comparison to similar business units (Rosemann & de Bruin, 2005). In addition, MMs provide guidelines on improvement measures (Becker et al., 2009), leading to identification of opportunity for improvement and a method for achievement.

2.3.1 Components of Maturity Models

(13)

8

2.4 Energy Management Maturity Models

Section 2.3 provided understanding of the purpose of MMs, which will now present grounding for the further examination of MMs used in EM. Applying an MM framework to the practice of energy sustainability should, as described by O’Sullivan (2011), provide a roadmap for organisations to guide the development of EnMSs and ensure continuous improvement. After application over time, an MM should allow analysis on the level of sustained energy-performance improvement. Reiterating what is described by O’Sullivan (2011), Antunes et al., (2014) describes five key benefits of applying MMs to EM: it enables incremental improvement and a pathway to higher energy efficiency; simplifies energy efficiency strategy, increases comprehensibility of steps required; allows benchmarking of performance against other organisations; and improves financial investment decision making. As identified by Finnerty et al. (2017) only four previous academic works have been published with the intent of establishing an EMMM. The existing literature is identified by most authors to be misaligned with current industrial practices (Antunes et al., 2014, Finnerty et al., 2017, Introna et al., 2014) nor do they consider in detail the current best practices (Introna et al., 2014), therefore more recent works have been conducted with the intention to provide greater structure to the models. An early work on the subject, conducted by Ngai et al. (2013), presents a model that defines an organisation’s progress between maturity levels. However, a firm using this model is neither able to assess their current situation, nor design a programme for the future (Introna et al., 2014) as the model provides no tooling for generalised assessment. In follow-up works by Introna et al. (2014) and Antunes et al. (2014), greater emphasis is placed on providing structured assessment frameworks. Antunes et al., (2014) provides an assessment model based on the ISO50001:2011 standard enabling companies to track their progress towards achieving accreditation. The model builds upon a well understood framework within industry, the Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) Cycle, providing clearly defined activities that form each level. However, the model does not provide guidance for organisations that have already achieved accreditation. Jovanović & Filipović (2016) provides further guidance to organisations who are already performing above the ISO50001:2011 standard. Finnerty et al. (2017) further develop a framework for use in large, multi-site organisations.

(14)

9 TABLE 2.2:EXAMINATION OF EXISTING MATURITY MODELS

2.4.1 Limitations of Existing Energy Management Maturity Models

The existing MMs do not yet fully satisfy the requirements of EnMSs provided in industrial guidelines and literature, nor do they provide guidance on how to overcome barriers to implementation in PIs. In particular, low awareness and competence are identified as barriers (Walsh & Thornley, 2012) and a requirement for an EnMS (ISO, 2018) but are not examined in MMs. Partnerships with other organisations are also identified as a method of reducing barriers (Rudberg et al., 2013) but MMs only examine the legal requirements (Jovanovic & Filipovic, 2016). Carbon Trust (2011) and ISO (2018) both define the need for the use historical data as benchmarks for future performance, however existing models only require baselining against machine best performance, and do not consider the environmental factors that contribute to fluctuations in consumption (ISO, 2018). Current models do not provide guidance on identifying risks to production (Rohdin et al., 2007), nor risk of technology investment (Masselink, 2007), which must be addressed in a successful EnMS (AIChE, 2008). Therefore, a new MM should be designed that incorporates these practices.

Model Elements Addressed Ngai et al.

(2013)

Energy Management Practice Establishment, Practice Standardisation, Performance Management And Continuous Improvement

Antunes et al. (2014)

Energy Management Commitment, responsibilities and roles, Energy review, Performance benchmarking and KPIs, Energy Policy, Regulatory Compliance, Investment, Procurement, Training, Communication, M &V, Management Review

Introna et al. (2014)

Knowledge and skills; Methodological approach; Energy performance management and information system; Organisational structure; Strategy and alignment

Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016)

EnMS establishment; Demonstration of top management commitment for energy management; Energy manager appointment; Energy policy defining; Energy planning; Energy legal and other requirements identification and evaluation; Energy Review; Energy baseline establishment; Defining energy performance indicators; Defining energy objectives and targets and action plans; Energy plans implementation; Involving employees in energy management; Internal and external communication; Energy documentation and records management; Control of operation affecting energy performance; Energy efficiency design and renovation of facilities, equipment, systems and processes, Energy efficient procurement. Monitoring, measurement and analysis of energy indicators, Internal audit of the energy management system, Energy related corrective and preventive actions implementation. Energy management review

Finnerty et al. (2017)

(15)

10

2.5 Literature Gap

While a range of publications have examined EM, PIs and the development of MMs, as shown in Figure 2.1, no such work yet exists that defines an EMMM capable of providing step-wise guidance to overcoming PI barriers to EM. Specific limitations that are not addressed are: the lack of guidance on the opportunities for energy reduction outside of the organisation; effective benchmarking of energy consumption, normalising for static and variable environmental factors; lack of awareness of risk analysis for identification of opportunities and threats to EnMS investment; and how organisations can improve EM awareness and competence within the organisation. Therefore, the main contribution of this work is the design of an EMMM that addresses the needs of the PI. Without guidance on overcoming these barriers, PIs are unable to effectively manage energy. This research focuses on identifying practices that are used by industries to overcome these barriers for EnMS implementation. Identification of these practices will enable more accurate assessment of capability when included into an industry tailored MM.

(16)

11

3.0 Methodology

The most appropriate methodology for identifying practically relevant answers to the identified questions is to use a design science approach. Wieringa (2009) is used as a basis to develop a relevant methodology of problem diagnosis, solution design and model validation. As identified by Wendler (2012) design science is the most relevant methodology for the creation of an MM due to the necessity to validate the relevant findings. This assertion is verified by the frequency of the use of the approach to develop MMs (Essmann & Du Preez, 2009; Hovmøller Mortensen, et al., 2008). The following sections further elaborate on the application of this methodology to this research.

3.1 Research Questions

The literature review in the previous section has indicated the research gap that will be addressed in this research. The primary question to be considered is:

RQ: How can energy management maturity models be tailored for use in process industries?

This question will be answered using the cycle developed by Wieringa (2009). Subsequently, the sub-questions (SQ) are structured in the following manner:

Problem Diagnosis

SQ1. What are the current shortcomings of energy management maturity models for application in process industries?

SQ2. To what extent do the maturity level structures in existing models meet the requirements of a practical assessment?

Solution Design

SQ3. What maturity level structure can be developed to provide better assessment of process industries?

SQ4. What practices are performed in the process industry to address the required elements? Model Validation

SQ5. Does this new model provide accurate identification of the maturity of organisations and provide useful guidance on process improvement?

(17)

12

3.2 Research Design

Figure 3.1 describes the steps completed in accordance to Wieringa (2009). The research design is an iterative process and therefore later steps can lead to amendment of earlier stages. Each stage is further detailed in the following section.

FIGURE 3.1:RESEARCH DESIGN

3.3 Problem Diagnosis

(18)

13

3.3.1 Identification of Necessary Model Elements

A literature examination has taken place in Section 2.1.1 to identify the necessary requirements for a successful EnMS. Following the literature review, to answer SQ1, an interview was held with an energy consultant within the case company to discuss the practical shortcomings of the existing EMMMs for application for PIs. The interview was semi-structured, recorded and transcribed, example questions are provided in Appendix C. To highlight the sufficiency or insufficiency of historic models, a mapping exercise between the requirements of an EnMS and their inclusion in existing MMs is conducted.

3.3.2 Analysis of Maturity Level Structures

The analysis of existing EMMM maturity level structures is completed for two purposes: to determine if they meet the practical requirements of a maturity assessment; and to identify if and how elements deemed complete in existing models can be incorporated into the new EMMM. To answer SQ2 and determine the practical suitability of the maturity level structures, comparison of existing EMMMs is made to MMs used within the case company and to the levels defined by the CMMI. This will identify if the level structures are compatible and how practices identified in existing EMMMs can be transposed into a new model.

3.4 Solution Design

The second stage in the development of any design science methodology is the solution design (van Aken et al., 2016; Wieringa, 2009). In this case the solution design should satisfy SQs 3 and 4. The process of solution design is made in three stages: Definition of the design requirements; design of a generic structure; and investigation of industry practices to formulate a specific design.

3.4.1 Design Requirements and Generic Design

(19)

14

3.4.2 Specific Design

Following the identification of the necessary elements for the new model, associated industry practices must be identified. Practices already present in literature are transposed as per the definitions of the maturity level structure developed in the generic design. For new elements, practices must be identified by multiple interviews of organisations within the PI. This stage will provide a comprehensive solution to SQ4. Interviewees were selected on their availability and the following criteria:

 Non-competitor of the case company: due to the nature of the research it is necessary to gain expertise from organisations who do not have any conflict of interest with the case company.  Energy Management Capability: To give indication of the progression of EM practice through increased levels of capability, organisations must be selected that have a range of ability. Interviewed organisations were categorised as follows:

 Advanced EM capability (A): The organisation is recognised by the government, or by self-reporting, to be significantly beyond the requirements of ISO50001.

 Moderate EM capability (M): The organisation is recently accredited for ISO50001.  Low EM capability (L): The organisation is not accredited for ISO50001 but do have

active EM.

 Process Industry: To ensure relevance of findings all companies should be categorised as PI as defined by Abdulmalek et al., (2006).

 Involvement in Energy Management: All interviewees must have significant involvement in the EM practices. To understand the breadth of impact of EM practices a range of roles within organisations have been interviewed including those directly involved in operation and those involved in strategic decision making.

Table 3.1 describes the details of the interview participants and the state of EM within each organisation.

TABLE 3.1:INTERVIEW PARTICIPANT DESCRIPTION

Company Location Interviewee Title Date Length Capability

Chemical Amsterdam Account Manager Energy 10/10/18 1 Hour A

Steel Ijmuiden Programme Manager (Energy Eff.) 08/10/18 1 Hour A

Minerals Delfzijl QESH Manager 18/10/18 1 Hour M

Consulting (Energy) Amersfoort Senior Consultant 27/09/18 1 Hour M

Plastics Zwolle Sustainability Manager 18/09/18 1 Hour L

(20)

15 The companies were contacted for interview to identify practices that were used to overcome the barriers to EM identified in the literature review, and therefore relating to new elements defined in the problem diagnosis.

Interviewees were provided ahead of time with the aims of the study, necessary consent forms and example questions provided in Appendix D. During the interviews, recordings were made and transcribed. The interview scripts are examined and categorised to identify themes relating to the identified elements. Appendix E presents the coding tree used to categorise the responses to the appropriate element.

3.5 Validation

Wieringa (2009) and van Aken et al., (2016) state that best validation technique for design science research is through “field testing a number of instantiations of the design within the intended application domain”. However, due to the time restriction on this work such rigorous testing will not be possible. Therefore, the method applied for validation will consider the criteria provided by Wieringa (2009) of Internal Validity and External Validity.

3.5.1 Internal Validity

To answer SQ5 an internal validity assessment is completed to ensure that the model meets the EMMM design requirements for the case company. In addition, De Bruin et al. (2005) identify two requirements for the validation of MMs: face validity demonstrates that practices defined for each element and each level of maturity accurately represents the progression of an organisation through development of that element; and content validity is used to demonstrate that the elements identified adequately cover all the requirements for assessment of EM within an organisation. The face and content validity is demonstrated via a workshop with three EM experts within the case company.

3.5.2 External Validity

(21)

16

4.0 Problem Diagnosis

This section identifies in more detail the limitations of existing EMMMs. The requirements of an EnMS are compared to the elements provided in existing EMMMs to identify elements for further research. In addition, the definitions of the maturity levels presented by the CMMI, existing EMMMs and the MMs used by the case company are analysed to determine if they are comparable.

4.1 Examination of Necessary Model Elements

This section compares the requirements of an EnMS with the elements presented in existing EMMMs to identify specific limitations which will be addressed in the new MM and answer SQ1: What are the current shortcomings of energy management maturity models for application in process industries? From this review, new elements are defined and the requirements analysed, with consultation from an energy consultant.

4.1.1 Examination Of Missing Elements Against Existing Models.

To identify specific limitations of existing EMMMs for application to the PI, a comparison must be made between the requirements of an EnMS, the specific barriers to EM in PIs, and the elements covered in existing MMs. The requirements of an EnMS is determined from examination of the academic literature and industrial guidelines presented in Section 2.1.1. The works presented have been further analysed to identify new elements for inclusion into an MM. An interview with an energy consultant within the case company is conducted to confirm the relevance to PIs and determine if practices identified in existing MMs make sufficient assessment of competence. The expanded EnMS requirements are grouped together by similar definition and are provided for comparison in Table 4.1. To examine the shortcomings of the existing models, a mapping methodology has been developed to identify the elements that require further consideration. The designation of element completeness is provided as follows:

Missing: The element is not yet considered in any of the existing EMMMs but is identified as a requirement for an EnMS.

Insufficient: The element is presented in some existing EMMMs but does not provide adequate scope to provide a comprehensive assessment as demanded by the EnMS requirements.

(22)

17 TABLE 4.1:REQUIRED ELEMENTS FOR AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL

EnMS Requirement Source* Mapping

Identification of Interested Parties Understanding the needs of interested parties1

Social responsibility2,8 _{Legal Requirements}5,8

Missing Definition and Scope of EM System Determine the scope of the energy management system1 _Missing

Management Commitment Ensure Management Commitment3_{, Engage Executives}4_,

Demonstrate Top Management Commitment5_{, Leadership}

and Commitment1

Stated Commitment2_{, Endorsed by High Level}

Management6_{, Demonstrate Senior Management}

commitment7

Complete

Energy Policy Establish Energy Policy3,8_{, Energy Policy defining}5

Energy Policy1

Complete Organisational Roles &

Responsibilities

Establish Energy Management Roles3_{, Team}4

Energy Manager Appointment5_{, Clear Accountability}6,8

Insufficient

Risk and Opportunity Identification Risk and Opportunity Identification1,8

Identify Improvement Opportunities3

Decision Support Framework4

Insufficient

Energy Review Energy Review1,3,4,5,6 _Complete

Objectives and Targets Define objectives and targets1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 _Complete

Energy Performance Indicators Define Energy Performance Indicators5

Establish Energy Performance Indicators3

Energy Performance Indicators1

Targets represented as KPIs6

Insufficient

Energy Baseline Benchmark Current Performance3,8_{, Data Analysis}4

Energy Baseline establishment5_{, Energy Baseline}1

Insufficient Plan for Collection of Energy Data Plan for Collection of Energy Data1 _Missing

Resource Adequate Resources6_{, Resources}1_{, Human and Technical}

resources available7

Complete Competence & Awareness Training3,7_{, Involve Employees}5_{, Competence}1_,

Awareness1,6,8_{, Skills and Communication}4

Insufficient Communication Internal/External Communication5_{, Communication}1,8_,

Skills and Communication4

Complete Documentation Documentation and record management5,8_,

Documentation1,3_{, Reporting System}6_{, Routine Reporting}7

Complete

Operational Planning and Control Control of Operation5_,_{Operational Planning and Control}1 _Complete

Design Design1,5 _Complete

Procurement Energy efficient procurement5

Procurement1

Complete

Monitoring, Measurement, Analysis Measurement & Verification4

Metering Monitoring, Analysis 1,5, 8

Complete

Internal Audit Compliance Audits4,8_{, Programme Audit}3 _Complete

Management Review Management Review1,3,4,5 _Complete

Corrective Actions Energy related corrective and preventive actions6_,

Implementation of corrective actions1

Complete

Continual Improvement Continual Improvement1 _Missing

*The source of each requirement is provided from the following literature: 1_{ISO50001 (ISO, 2018);}2_{AIChE (2008);}3_Antunes

et al. (2014); 4_{Finnerty et al., (2017);}5_{Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016);}6_{Carbon Trust (2011);}7_{TSM (2014);}8_{Schulze et al.,}

(23)

18

4.2 Analysis and Definition of Identified New Elements

The results of the mapping study provided in Table 4.1 demonstrate that while the majority of elements are considered in existing models, a number of elements can be defined that are not currently examined. This section examines each of the elements defined as missing or insufficient and provides description of the requirements for the new elements.

4.2.1 Elements Identified as Missing

Identification of Interested Parties

ISO50001:2018, AIChE and discussion with an energy consultant within the case company all recommend the identification of interested parties outside of the organisation. ISO50001:2018 defines examples such as Legal institutions and governmental bodies. AIChE identifies the requirement to develop partnerships with “non-governmental and community organisations” (AIChE, 2008). In addition, it is beneficial for PI organisations to develop partnerships with other industries onsite, suppliers and customers, particularly when the produced product is close to the end-customer (Energy Consultant), this enables the reduction in energy over the whole lifecycle of the product.

Definition and Scope of Energy Management System

Organisations must determine what processes contribute to energy consumption and what must be considered in an EnMS. Existing models do not identify a process for the definition of the scope and boundaries of the systems that are included and excluded from the EnMS. ISO50001:2018 requires that organisations must be able to identify and control for all external and internal issues that can impact the success of EM. This includes identifying all types of energy that are used by the organisation and any process defined within the organisation’s control. It is also identified by the energy consultant I that a process of comparing use between sources should be established, for example the calculation of the equivalent “Primary Energy” consumption, where primary energy is energy sources that are found in nature, untouched by a human conversion process (Energy Consultant). ISO50001:2018 also requires that a company examines the impact of outsourced processes.

Plan for Data Collection

(24)

19

Continual Improvement

Organisations must have a defined process for ensuring continual improvement and must be able to demonstrate that it is achieved. TSM (2014) identifies the requirement to set continuous improvement targets to “demonstrate reductions based on historical trends”. According to the energy consultant this can be demonstrated through “a structured process of continuous improvement by using investigations of incidents and non-conformities” or by employee culture of continuous improvement based on risk/opportunity analysis.

4.2.2 Elements Identified as Insufficient

Organisational Roles & Responsibilities

An organisation should have defined employee roles with specified responsibility for EM. While the requirement for an energy manager, and a reward system for them is examined in existing models, the full development of this process has yet to be included. ISO50001:2018 and the energy consultant, both identify that it is insufficient to only appoint this role but there is a requirement to provide the Energy Manager with the authority to influence the processes, “To improve [energy use] you should have an energy coordinator who is responsible, but they must also have the authority to take management policy to the process plant” (Energy Consultant). This can be achieved by appointing a member of upper management as the responsible energy manager (Energy Consultant). ISO50001:2018 also identifies the requirements of developing cross-functional teams to deliver successful projects.

Risk and Opportunity Identification

(25)

20

Energy Performance Indicators

Models do not provide guidance on the selection and development of a portfolio of Energy Performance Indicators. The complexity of the performance indicator should be considered, but also the intended end use and the appropriateness of the collected data for the end user (Energy Consultant). No criteria are given as to the development and use of performance indicators at different levels of the organisation. As identified by Schulze et al. (2016) existing models do not examine the structure of KPI usage across the organisation and how KPIs should be selected on a site basis. For examination on industry and national levels economic based KPIs, such as energy efficiency per economic term are sufficient (Bunse et al., 2011), however for improvement within an organisation, physical indicators, such as Gigajoules of consumption per tonne of production, are more suitable (Phylipsen, Blok & Worrell., 1997). Therefore, it is necessary for organisations to be provided with guidance on how to select appropriate performance indicators. The energy consultant identified that KPIs can be “differentiated into parts of the process or the different grades of the product”. Therefore, an organisation may use KPIs at a variety of organisational levels to get a better understanding of energy consumption.

Energy Baseline

A quantitative reference baseline must be established to form the basis for comparison of energy performance. No consideration is given to the normalisation of baselines in existing models. ISO50006 (ISO, 2014) defines this as a critical aspect of performance indicator usage. This element is required to identify adjustments that must be made to KPI data to ensure they are valid for target setting and analysis. Consideration should be paid to external and internal variables that can affect the energy usage of a process. While existing models, Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016) determine the process of baselining, it is only used to determine progress against best available technology. Therefore, not considering critical aspects of operation, such as the effects of changes in demand, product type or weather effects as identified by the energy consultant “ambient temperature” that can impact the effectiveness of the chosen KPIs and baseline periods.

Competence and Awareness

(26)

21 important to ensure that all employees are actually aware of the initiatives given from top management, this is not currently presented in any model.

4.2.3 Section Summary

This section has identified nine new elements that should be included into an EMMM. It has also identified that existing MMs already contain a number of elements that are relevant for assessment of EM in PI. Therefore, practices contained within those MMs are relevant for a new model. However, to be able to determine at which maturity level practices should be incorporated, the maturity level structures must be examined.

4.3 Analysis of Maturity Level Structures

There is no consistent definition of maturity levels presented in the existing EMMMs, CMMI or the MMs used in the case company. Therefore, this section looks to answer SQ2: “To what extent do the maturity level structures in existing models meet the requirements of a practical assessment?”. Additionally, to incorporate practices identified in previous works into a new model, it must be determined as to whether the maturity level structures are comparable. The comparability must be demonstrated in two ways: identify which levels are aligned between the different sources; and demonstrate that the practices defined in EMMMs cover the full range of maturity levels necessary in a practical assessment.

4.3.1 Maturity Level Structure in the Case Company.

(27)

22 TABLE 4.2:CASE COMPANY MATURITY LEVEL STRUCTURE (ASSET MANAGEMENT)

Level Description

Innocent No observed process in place. No policy, process or plan in place. No organisational nor structured performance achieved.

Awareness Some elements of the AM system in place, not formally structured. Not linked to organisational objectives. Policy and procedure are being worked on but not adequately applied or controlled. KPI's under development

Developing A basic AM system is under development, with elements in place. Policy exists but not well communicated, known nor referred to, procedures developed and used sometimes. Performance measures have been identified, are under development and reported.

Competent and Compliant

AM system is developed in alignment with organisational needs. There is a clear link with stakeholder needs. Policy and procedures widely understood and practised. Value's identified and used in decision making. Organisational performance clearly improving.

Excellence Performance of AM system is mature and above average, is improved continuously. Clear line of sight of processes from top level to bottom is seen and used. Agile value-based decision making. Performance is above average and decision-making value based.

4.3.2 Maturity Level Structure in Existing Models in Literature

(28)

23 TABLE 4.3:MATURITY LEVELS IDENTIFIED BY FINNERTY ET AL.(2017)

TABLE 4.4:MATURITY LEVELS IDENTIFIED BY JOVANOVIC &FILIPOVIC (2016)

4.3.3 Maturity Level Structure in CMMI

As identified in the literature examination, the CMMI maturity level structure is widely recognised in industry. By comparing the other maturity level structures to the CMMI it is possible to increase the generalisability of any newly defined model. The CMMI maturity level structure as presented in a continuous representation is given in Table 4.5. The maturity levels are defined from the situation where a requirement is not performed, up to a level at which a policy considers the goals and objectives of an organisation. This maturity level structure can also be directly related to the ISO standards. As determined by the CMMI Institute (2017), an organisation is compliant with ISO standards at the Defined level. The CMMI structure does not provide a level describing an organisation exceeding the requirements of accreditation unlike those presented above.

Level Description None or

Minimal

This is the ﬁrst step in the energy journey and in general it corresponds with the situation where there is no energy policy within the organisation

Emerging Organisations at this level would have started the energy journey by deﬁning an energy policy and are aware of energy performance.

Developing Here the organisation is half way through the energy journey, it would have enacted an energy policy and started taking measures towards improving energy efﬁciency.

Advancing At this level, the organisation consistently takes measures for improving energy efﬁciency, not only within the same organisation, but also reaching local/national authorities and communities

Leading This is the ﬁnal step in the energy journey as currently conceived and corresponds with an organisation that becomes a beacon for energy efﬁciency good practices

Level Description

Initial Energy management processes are chaotic; there are no implemented procedures and policies; energy performance depends only on the self-discipline of individuals.

Managed Requirements for energy management, significant energy users, the mechanisms for monitoring and measurement are applied; results achieved are only visible to some points; the organization has defined its energy requirements in some processes, and has established plans; corrective actions are applied when processes differ significantly from the plans.

Defined Energy management practices are standardized and applied; processes are documented; staff training is an important requirement. All ISO 50001 processes are implemented.

Quantitatively Managed

An organization has effectively implemented standardized energy management processes; energy use data is collected, statistically analysed and benchmarked; causes of process variation are identified; the objective is to monitor pollution as well as energy use.

(29)

24 TABLE 4.5:CMMIMATURITY LEVELS

4.3.4 Comparison of Maturity Level Structures

From the analysis conducted it can be determined that the MMs of Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016) and Finnerty et al. (2017) can be compared and aligned to the maturity level structure provided by the case company. It is also possible to relate all the maturity level structures to the recognised CMMI structure. The comparability of these models is depicted in Table 4.6 and analysed below.

TABLE 4.6:COMPARISON OF MATURITY LEVEL STRUCTURES

Case Company CMMI Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016) Finnerty et al. (2017)

Innocent Not Performed Initial None or Minimal

Awareness Performed (Undefined) Emerging

Developing Managed Managed Developing

Competent & Compliant Defined Defined Advancing

Excellence (Undefined) Quantitatively Managed Leading

Optimised

Level 0 (Not Performed) defined by CMMI can be related to Innocent provided by the case company. Innocent defines that management are completely unaware of the process requirement or that they perceive it to be an unnecessary process and therefore no organisational support is provided. In Finnerty et al. (2017) this level is represented by None or Minimal with no policy established. Through examination of the model presented by Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016) it is identified that the Initial level is aligned with the requirements of Not Performed, rather than the Performed level that would be expected. This is evidenced, for example, by the element “Internal and External Communication” with the practice “Communication does not exist”. As these levels can be clearly related, simple transposition is possible.

Level

Description

Not Performed Incomplete approach to meeting the intent of the element. May or may not be meeting the intent of any practice. This is represented by no performance, or partial and inconsistent performance. Performed Initial approach to meeting the intent of the element. Not a complete set of practices to meeting the

full intent of the element. This may be achieved by the abilities of an individual. This element is performed and accomplishes the basic requirements of the organisation but is not institutionalised and therefore capability may be lost over time.

Managed Practices pertaining to a specific element are completed with guidance from a simple policy. The policy specifies responsibility and the resource requirements and produces controlled improvements. However, policies are developed independently and do not relate to policies for other elements. Success of projects is related to the performance of practices relating to this element only.

(30)

25 Level 1 (Performed) can be related to the Awareness capability level provided by the case company. Awareness defines the stage at which an organisation understands the necessity of the process but has yet to implement any formal procedures but may have made some advancement. The definition of Emerging describes the organisation is in the process of establishing an energy policy and has had some initial success. However, this maturity level is not explicitly defined in Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016) therefore it is necessary to look at some practices defined in the Managed level to identify those that are better aligned with the Performed requirements.

Level 2 (Managed) can be compared directly to the Developing requirement provided by the case company. Both of these requirements are demonstrated by the initial development and integration of formal procedures but with limited use across the organisation. The policy is not clearly communicated across the organisation nor well documented. Both have established measurement practices but identify that reporting is limited. This is also directly related to Developing provided in Finnerty et al. (2017), providing a basic policy that is not consistent across the organisation. Jovanovic and Filipovic (2016) use the comparable Managed level defined from CMMI.

Level 3 (Defined) can be related to Competent and Compliant. At this level the requirements for ISO standards are met. Advancing as defined by Finnerty et al. (2016) is related to consistent performance across the organisation with a standardised policy established. This is demonstrated in both by standardised work practices, and processes are documented. Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016) also use the Defined level to demonstrate capability in line with ISO standards. Therefore, any organisation wishing to develop further will require additional process maturity than those identified by the ISO50001 standard.

All the examined models provide capability beyond Level 3 of CMMI. Levels Excellence and Leading presented by the case company and Finnerty et al. (2017) both demand that the organisation can demonstrate industry leading practices. Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016) present two levels above Defined enabling well-performing organisations to be distinguished from those who just meet accreditation requirements.

(31)

26

4.4 Problem Diagnosis Summary

(32)

27

5.0 Solution Design

This section provides the design of a new maturity model to improve on existing models to provide a comprehensive assessment of EM in PI organisations. The design requirements are defined based upon the problems identified in the previous section and the general design requirements of an MM presented in literature (Shrum, 2000; SEI, 2010; De Bruin et al., 2005). A generic design is presented, providing a maturity level structure to address SQ3: “What maturity level structure can be developed to provide better assessment of process industries?”. Finally, through inclusion of practices presented in literature and interview with PI companies, SQ4: “What practices are performed in the process industry to address the required elements?” is addressed and a new MM is presented.

5.1 Design Requirements

The design requirements for an EMMM are determined from both literature sources and the specific requirements of the case company. Therefore, the design of a new MM must satisfy the following design requirements:

Model Element Requirements

According to De Bruin et al. (2005) in any design of an MM the elements must provide an exhaustive assessment of the domain and be mutually exclusive. In the EM domain an exhaustive assessment will examine all of the requirements of an EnMS as provided in Table 4.1. A particular design requirement of the case company is that the model elements should be directly related to the ISO50001:2018 standard.

Maturity Level Structure Requirements

(33)

28

5.2 Generic Design

To develop the generic design of a model a number of key decisions must be made. The first design decision is to select and organise the elements required for an EMMM. The elements required for an EMMM to meet the requirements for an EnMS have been identified through the problem identification. To determine the organisation of the elements the ISO50001:2018 can be used. This international standard is regularly used by companies in the PI to guide improvement in EM (ISO, 2017), it is also defined by the case company that the EMMM should be able to directly assess against these requirements. ISO50001:2018 can also be aligned with the PDCA cycle (ISO,2018), demonstrating how each element contributes to each stage of process improvement. Therefore, by harmonising the organisation of this EMMM to this standard, assessment against ISO50001:2018 is simplified and the mutual exclusivity of elements is ensured. The elements to be considered and their organisation is provided in Table 5.1.

TABLE 5.1:ORGANISATION OF NECESSARY ELEMENTS

Pl

an

Context of the Organisation

Identification of Interested Parties Definition and Scope of EM System

Leadership

Management Commitment Energy Policy

Organisational Roles & Responsibilities

Pl

an

Planning

Risk and Opportunity Identification Energy Review Objectives and Targets Energy Performance Indicators Energy Baseline

Plan for Collection of Energy Data

Support

Resource

Competence & Awareness Communication

Documentation

Do

Operation

Operational Planning and Control Design Procurement Performance Evaluation Monitoring, Measurement, Analysis Internal Audit Management Review Improvement Corrective Actions Continual Improvement C h e ck Do Act

(34)

29 maturity level structure, nor does one exist that is defined in the continuous representation provided by the CMMI, a new maturity level structure is defined in Table 5.2 that provides a practically useful assessment and is aligned with the CMMI structure.

TABLE 5.2:MATURITY LEVEL STRUCTURE

As a solution to SQ3, the new maturity level structure presents five maturity levels that describe the development of an organisation’s EnMS. Levels 0 and 1 describe an organisation with no specified EM policy, the distinguishing feature between these is the awareness of the contribution of this element to EM. Levels 2 and 3 describe organisations that have an established EnMS. The higher of these will be able to demonstrate an organisation has a standardised EnMS that is related to the objectives and goals of the organisation. An organisation achieving Level 3 maturity meets the requirements of ISO50001:2018. As the CMMI only describes maturity up to achievement of ISO standards (CMMI Institute, 2017), to increase the usability for organisations who are already competent at EM, a further Level 4 is defined to demonstrate how the requirements of ISO50001 can be exceeded.

From this generic design it is now possible to relate industry practices performed to the appropriate maturity level. The following section provides an examination of the practices completed in PIs to develop a specified EMMM.

5.3 Specific Design

To populate the model, and address SQ4, practices must be identified which relate the elements to the appropriate maturity level. The elements that are already considered in EMMMs can be populated from Finnerty et al. (2017) and Jovanovic & Filipovic (2016). However, for elements identified as insufficient or missing it is necessary to examine the practices that are currently performed in industry. The following section provides the results of the interviews with five external PI organisations and one expert of the case company with experience in the PI. The progression of competence is discussed for

Maturity Level Score Definition

Not Performed 0 Either not performed or partially performed, does not meet the intent of the practice. Performed 1 The process is performed and achieves some of the organisation’s goals. Is not

embedded in policy, and therefore capability may be lost over time.

Managed 2 A simple EnMS is used. The process is planned and executed along with a simple policy, resources are defined, and responsibilities are assigned.

Defined 3 A comprehensive EnMS is established. Policies between processes have a standard format. EnMS meets the requirements of ISO50001. Implementation is considered in line with both process and organisational objectives

(35)

30 each of the nine new elements. The interviewees have been anonymised using codenames, definitions for which are provided in Appendix H (if available).

5.3.1 Identification of Interested Parties

While existing models focus only on the influence of government and regulation for EM, interviews with the industrial practitioners identified a number of other interested parties who can be considered stakeholders in an organisation’s EM and exert influence over the implementation of development.

Government and Regulative Authority

All organisations have a requirement to identify relevant governmental regulations and provide annual reporting of energy consumption. These directives are translated into organisational policy in all the interviewee companies (Chemical, Plastics, Steel, Coatings, Minerals) and therefore influence the development of policies, goals and objectives. However, relationships can be strengthened to provide benefits to the company that can influence the market to enable reduction in energy consumption. Best practice organisations, Chemical and Steel, identified their involvement in regulation development. The proposed benefits of this to the companies were:

(i) the ability to influence the availability of energy efficient raw material (Chemical) (ii) access to a greater proportion of sustainable energy sources (Chemical)

(iii) encourages development of energy efficient technologies that can replace existing processes (Chemical, Steel). In PIs where suppliers and consumers are directly linked, and therefore the supply base is limited to a single organisation, the ability for an organisation to influence suppliers is highly desirable (Chemical).

Local Community

Plastics and Chemical identified that they develop partnerships with local municipalities and community groups to develop energy waste reduction projects, these can be done through “Circular economies” (Plastics) to generate revenue from waste. Organisations recognised the increase in societal pressures and consumer desire to increase energy efficiency (Coatings, Chemical and Consulting).

Customers & Suppliers

(36)

31 requirements as a restriction on the development of EM projects, for example, requirements for product quality. Suppliers are also identified as stakeholders, Steel, Chemical and Coatings identify suppliers as key sources of new technical knowledge. Consulting and Chemical both identified the benefits of supplier development programmes to reduce EM within the value chain.

5.3.2 Definition And Scope of EM System

For an organisation to effectively develop a comprehensive EnMS they must first define the scope of the items that must be considered. Interviewees identified the scope of their EM practices to consider both internal and external functions.

Internal Functions

Even though all identified as multisite organisations, Chemical, Coatings, Steel, and Plastics established an EnMS at different levels of the organisation. Coatings and Minerals developed an EnMS per site, restricting the comparison of procedures to data trends internally. However, other organisations, Chemical, Steel and Plastics identified an EnMS that encompassed all works sites within the organisation. By defining a broader scope of EM these organisations are able to incorporate EM into core business objectives and strategy, establishing an organisation-wide culture of addressing EM concerns (Steel, Chemical). All interviewed organisations discussed the necessity to identify the full range of energy sources that are consumed. Both primary and secondary energy sources were identified, Natural Gas (Steel, Coatings, Mineral), and electricity consumption (Mineral, Chemical, Coatings, Plastics) were considered in addition to steam (Coatings, Mineral), compressed air (Steel, Coatings, Mineral) and diesel (Mineral). Two opinions were held on the necessity to perform comparison of energy consumption by converting to “Primary Energy”. Consulting and Coatings recognised the benefits of a single metric for comparison, Consulting proposed this is necessary for future changeovers in energy sources, and Coatings identified that the differences in calorific value of gases must be considered. However, Steel did not agree that this offered any additional value.

External Functions

(37)

32 used for “Window-dressing” to make an organisation appear more sustainable (Consulting). Other external factors identified included purchasing of sustainable raw materials (Steel, Consulting, Minerals) and outsourcing of processes (Plastics, Coatings). All organisations recognised the necessity to build relationships with neighbouring organisations due to the close proximity of plants and shared supply lines. Changes in product will affect other organisations’ processes and opportunity is presented for the use of other organisations’ waste material.

5.3.3 Organisational Roles and Responsibilities

Organisations with limited EM capability had an individual appointed responsible for EM within the organisation (Coatings, Plastics), whereas best practice organisations used multiple EM teams, each holding defined responsibilities. Specific teams were implemented for the purchasing of energy (Chemical), process efficiency and waste reduction (Chemical, Steel), performance monitoring (Steel, Chemical) in addition to the establishment of advisory teams to support onsite EM (Chemical). All organisations identified interaction between the EM teams and other departments including: Maintenance (Minerals), Operations (Plastics, Chemical, Steel) and Research and Development departments (Plastics, Minerals).

In industry, authority is achieved through the following methods: best practice companies had a strong backing of EM from top management (Steel, Chemical, Plastics). While those with limited capability primarily produced reports to present to upper management with no direct involvement in directing improvement (Coatings). Authority is also provided by developing strong business cases for each proposal (Steel).

5.3.4 Risk and Opportunity Identification

Opportunity identification was categorised by organisations to take place both from external and internal developments. Opportunities and actions taken are discussed in the section including examination of risk analysis that is conducted to ensure successful project delivery.

External Developments

Oliver Wall – A DESIGN SCIENCE APPROACH AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL FOR PROCESS INDUSTRIES

AN ENERGY MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL

FOR PROCESS INDUSTRIES – A DESIGN SCIENCE

APPROACH

Oliver Wall

Student Number (Groningen) S3609081

Student Number (Newcastle) 130288343

10

December 2018

Supervised by:

Abstract

Acknowledgements

Contents

Abbreviations

Tables

Figures

1.0 Introduction

2.0 Literature Background

2.1 Energy Management

2.1.1 Requirements of an Energy Management System

2.2 Process Industries

2.2.1 Drivers and Barriers to Energy Management in Process Industries

2.3 Maturity Models

2.3.1 Components of Maturity Models

2.4 Energy Management Maturity Models

2.4.1 Limitations of Existing Energy Management Maturity Models

2.5 Literature Gap

3.0 Methodology

3.1 Research Questions

3.2 Research Design

3.3 Problem Diagnosis

3.3.1 Identification of Necessary Model Elements

3.3.2 Analysis of Maturity Level Structures

3.4 Solution Design

3.4.1 Design Requirements and Generic Design

3.4.2 Specific Design

3.5 Validation

3.5.1 Internal Validity

3.5.2 External Validity

4.0 Problem Diagnosis

4.1 Examination of Necessary Model Elements

4.1.1 Examination Of Missing Elements Against Existing Models.

4.2 Analysis and Definition of Identified New Elements

4.2.1 Elements Identified as Missing

4.2.2 Elements Identified as Insufficient

4.2.3 Section Summary

4.3 Analysis of Maturity Level Structures

4.3.1 Maturity Level Structure in the Case Company.

4.3.2 Maturity Level Structure in Existing Models in Literature

4.3.3 Maturity Level Structure in CMMI

4.3.4 Comparison of Maturity Level Structures

Level

Description

4.4 Problem Diagnosis Summary

5.0 Solution Design

5.1 Design Requirements

5.2 Generic Design

5.3 Specific Design

5.3.1 Identification of Interested Parties

5.3.2 Definition And Scope of EM System

5.3.3 Organisational Roles and Responsibilities

5.3.4 Risk and Opportunity Identification

_{December 2018}