Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Assystem S.A.
Ep. 192 - Stephane Aubarbier, Assystem
(1) Decreasing focus on design and adopting the copy and paste model to deliver projects on time and on budget
(2) The reasons behind Assystem’s continued focus and success in the nuclear industry
(3) Why education is needed to understand that decreasing energy consumption will not stop climate change
(4) Assystem’s strategy when partnering with countries to develop nuclear programs
Transcript (70 segments)
S
Stéphane Aubarbier0:07
Stéphane Aubarbier, Deputy CEO of Assystem. We are an engineering company, a monster of engineers, with a history in commissioning.
We started with commissioning activities, for example for power plants, and the final assembly line in the automotive industry. We work with commissioning in both automotive industry and nuclear. After seven years in that area, Assystem proposed to experiment back in systems to lead the development of...
Commissioning became more generalized. After design and construction are delivered, we can say we're working on planning, take over construction management. And then I will not have any reason to compete with the projects and still cover design and project management.
Let us come to techniques. We offer financing and management capabilities, university-level expertise. We have digital tools, coordination capabilities given by all digital systems, and management abilities. In 2010, we had projects in automotive, nuclear...
It's all about the management of operations, expectations of people, whatever industry it is. We have specific centers and forces to make design, of course. We feed the project timeline from the beginning at least, to make it performant. Design thinking, casting of base, nuclear.
Regulation is of course important, compulsory. You have to design to fit with the requirements of the safety authority. You need power, electricity. We have the two to do it now. Design power station and record the way of the project.
What we love in commissioning hands and project direction is that when you switch to a new project, you have to stop pushing the project. As soon as you deliver the design, you switch to construction. No longer try to figure out what could be the best — it's just to make the construction and the plant running as fast as possible.
You go from the design phase to the construction phase, and the way to manage the project changes. Most often the project management will switch from physical design to construction. When design is finished, project management changes completely. They have not done the same things.
It's very difficult to add things during construction. Stopping to push the project during design and making a modification during construction is very costly. The better way is to have done good design from the start, and then to manage the project in a different way.
A project leader is a human being, it's not that easy. You have to be at the same time the project manager at every moment. You cannot not have project management and engineering together.
If you don't keep the same ability throughout the project, in the design phase, you assess the design — that's not the week end of the project. You assess the design trying to reach the best design you can have. You cannot separate the engine team and project management.
It is in the industry, a reality. The most important reason of difficulty in the nuclear industry to match the time the project is related to, basically to reduce the commitment taken. We can't fight unrealistic meaning of the beginning — it will not be reached.
The focus on viability to deliver the project compared to the pure engineering design of the project — the balance is not the same. We work in design and the quality of design, flexibility, security. You need to match the scale of the project.
It comes from the fact that most of the big players in the nuclear industry, probably many operators, their project originated from the operators themselves. The best nuclear power plant is the one the operators build. Design is good, and then you have to deliver the project. You have to be rich of mind in that respect.
In the nuclear project, this form has been recognized. The nuclear industry has suffered from two parties who dominate.
My personal history is going away with the world of Assystem. Assystem started to be a commissioning company, a specialist in commissioning. The project was difficult, we were supposed to not be looking back. We have been upstream from project, gradually going from commissioning upstream to design and then to project management.
Our design company was focusing all along to deliver the projects. There is a gap between companies — a company born in design to do the best way versus a commissioning company that has to deliver the project. You have to make the balance between project management, design, and construction.
The learning curve of companies working on projects — this is the issue of the project. To be a success, the French way of managing the project between the two phases.
For the project, the best way is to copy and paste. To reduce the design to a minimum and then repeat. The business is to make your way, a high-end offer. As a designer required to be the project between the two, you have to limit the design.
If you consider the economy of a nuclear project, probably about fifty to fifteen percent, the total cost is in the construction. The CapEx is not just in engineering. When you break down the cost, fifteen to twenty-five percent are the costs related to the design phase.
The funding of the project, the risk coverage — if you see as an operator, if you want mobility to make the project, the difficulties in the project in nuclear are the costs at risk. Consider the investors who are used in nuclear. The risk in operations and construction is important.
The best way is to copy and paste — meaning that you keep the same design, supply chain, contract automatically. It reduces the risk of the project. It means that one way to consider nuclear projects is no longer to try to see a new project wave, to do it before the design phase construction.
To define the project, ten things in ten minutes, as much as possible. Innovation and creativity in the new project, and then the design is where you try to change as little as possible. Similar projects, then to make the construction with the same supply chain.
One of the risks we have now in the nuclear industry is the gap between two projects where you lose capability. We need to maintain the workforce between projects.
We recruit engineers, each one with a title in project management or design. Meaning that our engineers will be focused on delivering the project. Whatever the content of the project, it's the way in fact — too big, too late. That's the reason for which we consider the companies differently.
We have small design offices, big enough for this kind of business. Adaptations designed for the client. The design of the constructor has changed. Projects would prefer to do things differently.
We focus on the delivery of the project, and then what we try to coach our engineers to do basically is to be more focused on the customer, on the outsider, and inside the company to ensure the satisfaction. The best way is to be cost-competitive.
Assystem is a company with a large footprint. We have been six IE&P activities. They don't guarantee — a tsunami of ten for the Middle East. The very large definition of Middle East — Egypt, Emirates, Uzbekistan.
In sixty-six, commissioning began. A new wave, and big companies spun off from governmental bodies. In France, a dedicated entity for nuclear activities was created in sixty-six to commission all the nuclear plants in France.
The company was created in '66 to commission the fleet of nuclear plants in France, told by France. We started in China, South Africa, and other places. We started to consider diversification, where you are similar to the new world.
We had to face complex infrastructure projects. We started to develop in areas where we could grow. In twenty-fifteen, we focused on nuclear — because we are still a family company, one of the defenders.
We have to consolidate different markets and make different kinds of acquisitions. We would not keep on being key players only in nuclear plus complex infrastructure projects. We made the decision to keep nuclear and aerospace, and also automotive.
In complex infrastructure projects, it's what we like, what we like to do. The reason for which we make a choice — one which is deeply connected. They want to fight against climate change.
New solutions are increasingly needed. Planning for electricity — if you want to have green electricity, you have no choice. Developing nuclear is part of the renewal. On one hand, and if you want to specialize, big freeze — North America, Europe, China, India.
Shenzhen, nuclear facilities — the balance of economics. We had conviction that the nuclear footprint in the Middle East would grow. Parts of the world are accepting nuclear, not just the western countries.
We developed activity and then collaboration with the rational industry. You can see two international projects going in nuclear worldwide. Led by the nuclear chef, domestic markets are big and rich.
Especially when you come into countries accessing nuclear for the first time — there are many phases of the project. We considered the future of the campaign, at least twenty-twenty five.
Five years on the business. We think that it will still go forward. New nuclear projects — many cross-selling opportunities between new build and existing fleet.
Projects are coming in Africa, Middle East. Energy is the climate change issue, and it's said yes.
The difficulty is to be heard. The global voice — the reality is that the gap is in public opinion. Different governments in Asia have fast energy consumption. If you look at the US, the phase is mature.
Consider the growth of energy consumption — since nineteen ninety, energy is the group is exponential. You will reach a strong fraction of that.
When you consider the trends, you see that energy conception is still growing in the hold-ups. Related to the way energy consumption evolves — in western countries, it's mature.
When you consider somewhere else in countries where energy consumption is rising — it will be a huge increase. Globally, from a world perspective, energy consumption is definitely growing.
We have to consider — is it possible to produce energy without affecting? The trends in energy production show a huge discrepancy between what is said and published by the different countries, governments, and public opinion.
The limits of energy consumption — looking at the world, thinking that the world is yourself — you can't explain. When you have the governments of France, China, you can't ignore other countries. Each country makes its own decisions.
Energy conception in the world is not a global concept. We have to change the world. It's a difficult topic to explain to the public.
As we live in a world where technology is less important, the scientific education of the people is getting lower. So we keep running things we don't need. And when you need to talk about energy and electricity, it's your difficulty.
The communication between scientists and the public is not easy because you have a huge technical gap. It's quite long, and those in charge of public opinion find a way to make or destroy public opinion.
There's a paradox in the way energy policies run in different countries. In France, the nuclear acceptance is applications — sixty-five percent of the French population think nuclear is good. Nuclear has been running for forty years.
That's the paradox where everybody is quite sincerely concerned with global life. They still believe in the generic global world of health. As soon as you are not alone in that.
It's difficult to face the challenges, and the next generation will be a photo like it should be. If we are not transparent with society in the way we make our living, the challenge is we will pay for it. It will be a business issue.
As we speak now, we have to match the challenge. What are the ways, the means, the leverage we have to actually act on the new challenges?
We work with countries like Egypt, Saudi Arabia, UAE, Uzbekistan, Turkey — they want to develop nuclear programs. We're in charge of building the regulatory framework and assisting the industry.
We help the industry in charge of building projects to be successful, trying to limit the challenges in the design while matching the requirements of the safety authority. The challenge of new nuclear newcomers is that they have to develop nuclear culture, standards, and it takes time.
When we build by turn, the balance between involvement in both projects is to try to mitigate and reduce as much as possible the gap between requirements and design.
Nuclear regulation — each country is different. You have different regulation in different countries. But they want to see the same basic regulation. The legal investment in each country is different.
Abilities are not defined the same way in all the countries. Health and safety — consequently the regulation is becoming clearer. It cannot move fast. When we come to India, the nuclear industry has been set up according to regulation.
Having huge nuclear fleets — it is not so easy to find the right regulation. Consider US, Canada, France, Japan, China — you have a significant force of nuclear reactors, a long history.
Trying to find a common regulation is not so easy. Even though we consider that we have standards, we will still have specialties related to the local legal environment.
When we collaborate with newcomers, we're not specialized in the country to build the regulation. The first thing for us is the specificity of the regulation according to the technology.
We could assist. The choice of technology has been defined, and it happened in most times. The choice of technology is given by bilateral agreements between countries. When you have newcomers in the world, it means a project — you have selected technology.
As System is French, we're not supposed to be dependent. There is a dependence on capital and perspectives. The selection process — as we could be connected with China or France — it means the first thing will have to close the gap between the design proposed and the licensing requirements.
Try to mitigate the interest — the gap between regulation and design is getting at any time. The best way to make the project successful is to innovate and deliver the project.
New build program drives — there are only a few projects, very few between different people, technologies. French-Chinese relations are very similar in concept. Big constructions, construction perspectives.
Everybody wants to reach similar safety standards. Safety in design and the world cup of construction — everybody wants similar concepts.
Selection in technology — the technology has differences. Two major differences: the choice of the vendors, and the viability to fade the project and take over construction.
You have one way in technology to construct series. You need the capability to manage the project and to focus on the requirements to be free to do less jobs.
In the coming years, yes, we will still focus on Europe and Middle East, and India specifically. Canada will go for new projects. China is a domestic market with good competitors.
It really makes sense for us to try to step in markets where we can bring value. In the coming years, operators will focus on safety of operations, which is massive. Hopefully no new major accidents.
The point is that it would be good to see new builds to deliver projects. Because it is a major challenge for the future of the industry.