Today’s projects are complex and require a sophisticated approach to commissioning. The industry-norm is to leave commissioning to the end of projects, but this no longer works. If you’re stuck with this industry-norm, it is costing your projects millions of dollars and missed in-service dates.

Instead, we need a new approach to commissioning, where commissioning is integrated into all earlier stages of projects to ensure the end of projects goes smoothly. Successful commissioning and startup of projects have to be the main focus and priority through all stages of projects – to complete projects on-time and on-budget.  Without this, all issues from earlier in projects are deferred to the commissioning phase, adding unnecessary risk to the end of your project, and resulting in delays and cost overruns.

There are 4 pillars of Integrated Commissioning. 

When all 4 pillars are included in your projects, you can leverage the value that a structured and organized approach to commissioning provides to successfully deliver your projects on-time and on-budget.

Commissioning Procurement

When commissioning is integrated between design, construction, and on-site commissioning, there are far less design issues in the field, you’ll have a much smoother handover from construction to commissioning, and on-site testing will have much less snags.

But without commissioning integrated into procurement processes, you will have a much more difficult time completing your project. These are the issues you will encounter:

• Design groups that are selected may be great at completing designs, but they will lack an understanding of the commissioning process and how to translate their designs for implementation in the field
• The same goes for construction groups – they may be great installers, but installations will lack the required quality checks for snag-free commissioning, with construction eroding your project schedule and leaving no time for critical path commissioning activities to achieve your in-service date
• Your equipment supply contracts will be lacking critical factory test requirements, meaning that defects that should have been identified and fixed in the factory cause delays during commissioning while errors are fixed.
• And equipment supply contracts for automation control cubicles need special attention, to ensure integrated testing of both the hardware and software is clearly defined in procurement contracts so that these issues are not deferred to site testing, which always causes significant delays while groups try to troubleshoot why the control systems are not functioning correctly.
• Since factory testing is the first equipment test to be conducted, equipment procurement contracts must ensure factory testing aligns with site acceptance testing, to ensure no test stages are missed in the overall commissioning process. If factory testing does not align with site acceptance testing, there will already be confusion at the start of commissioning on what needs to be tested during each stage.
• When supply contracts are poorly defined, equipment arriving at site will already have issues that can cause 1 month or more of testing delays for things that were missed in the factory.

Not integrating commissioning into your procurement processes already limits your ability to succeed during on-site testing, since the equipment will arrive at site with defects and deficiencies that should have been caught in the factory. Control systems are complex and always cause issues at the end of projects, and if these critical deliveries are not integrated and tested properly in the factory, your project will experience significant delays while your logic programming is sorted out on-site.

Commissioning Design

When commissioning is integrated between procurement, construction, and on-site commissioning, you’ll have equipment arriving at site that has been properly tested in the factory, you’ll have a smooth handover from construction to commissioning, and on-site testing will have much less snags.

But without commissioning integrated into design processes, there is a significant disconnect between the beginning of your project during design and the end of your project during commissioning. With such a disconnect, the misalignment between these groups only becomes apparent during on-site testing, when it is too late to recover, and issues encountered cause significant delays and cost overruns. These are the problems you will encounter:

• Designs are completed in isolation with no input from your commissioning team and no input from the end-user operators. Without input, these groups will identify problems at the end of the project, rather than at the beginning when there would have been time to correct issues at a much cheaper cost. It is too risky to get this input only at the end of your project when it costs so much more to address issues that are encountered.
• Think of this process as a feedback loop. Any stable control system has feedback, where control signals from the system are used to adjust inputs for optimized outputs.  When there is no feedback loop, control systems quickly become unstable and generate unpredictable results. Feedback from commissioning groups to earlier FEED activities ensures that design deliverables that are generated align with what is required at the end of projects for better project outcomes. In other words, the commissioning team can give valuable lessons learned to earlier groups in the project for better results at the end.
• When designs are completed in isolation, the industry-norm is for hundreds of RFIs and hundreds of change orders to be generated that causing months of delays as issues are addressed. Instead, upfront discussions need to take place to sort through the details in advance and ensure smooth execution during on-site testing. There is no reason to defer these questions and clarifications to later in the project – put in the effort upfront so that you can have a swift execution and prompt finish of your project.
• Control systems present a unique challenge – when Process Control Narratives are written years in advance, they may make sense on paper, but there will be questions and interpretations when controls are implemented in the field. The engineer may no longer be with the project and it is up to the field team to try and interpret how the systems are to function based on what was written 5 years prior.  Misinterpretations of process control narratives and poor implementation of control systems in the field always lead to delays. Instead, the discussions need to be made a priority while PCNs are being developed during early design activities to ensure no details are missed and control philosophies make sense in the field. Having this input early in projects significantly reduces the delays you will encounter with your control systems at the end of your projects.
• Too often we see design engineers that don’t understand how the decisions they make impact operations in the field. It’s not their fault – they may be great at completing design packages, but they aren’t aware of the challenges that are encountered in the field during the later stages of projects. But having later commissioning and operating groups support designers at the beginning of projects bridges this gap and allows everyone to contribute their best knowledge for better implementation later during on-site commissioning.
• Early in projects, the smaller details may not seem as important – you’ll hear, we can figure that out later.  But these small items quickly compound to a lot of small things to determine in the field. When 10-20% of the design details are missing because of this approach, this becomes a significant effort to figure out during critical path on-site commissioning.  Missing design details such as settings in protection coordination studies or when there are clashes between electrical and mechanical subsystems add up and cause significant delays during on-site execution. A better approach is to have upfront discussions, and figure out the details, so there is a rock-solid plan for site execution that can be completed swiftly and promptly.
• We want to avoid the lazy approach to design – it’s too easy to identify something as field-fit or details to be determined on-site. This becomes a big issue for control systems, and the details matter. Feedback from later in the project can identify these items so that upfront discussions can take place for more thorough plans prior to execution in the field.
• Think of it this way – being on the giving end of information is different from being on the receiving end of information. It helps designers to understand how the information they are generating will be used in the field so that they can give a more practical engineering definition that is easier to implement in the field.

Commissioning Construction

When commissioning is integrated between procurement, design, and on-site commissioning, you’ll have equipment arriving at site that has been properly tested in the factory, there are far less design issues in the field, and on-site testing will have much less snags.

But without commissioning integrated into construction processes, these are the issues that you will encounter:

• Construction groups will be focused on an equipment mindset rather than transitioning to a systems mindset – a missing instrument during installation is not a big deal, but becomes a big problem when it is missing during system testing. For commissioning to proceed, we need all of the components of the subsystem, not just 95% of them. As an example, if the missing instrument is a key input to initiate control sequences, testing is not able to proceed with no input to initiate the control sequence. We’re stuck and must wait for the missing instrument.
• Mechanical completions processes will have gaps, with incomplete installations, missing equipment, missing instruments, missing documentation, and subsystems that do not align with the project startup sequences. This creates many snags that delay commissioning activities and impact your ability to meet the project in-service date.
• When construction and commissioning groups are not aligned, this is a very unsafe working environment. When energizations are taking place in one area, and installations are continuing in another, activities need to be very closely coordinated so that the work can take place safely and effectively.
• When there is a lack of quality control and quality assurance processes to oversee installation activities, things will get missed and impact commissioning. It is poor risk management to rely on your commissioning team to find errors. This will only cause costly delays, rather than proactively managing quality during construction activities with the industry-best QA/QC processes. This is low-cost insurance to avoid much more expensive delays later in your project.
• Construction groups are typically responsible for certain pre-commissioning activities. But when construction groups don’t understand their role to contribute to the successful commissioning and startup of the facilities, this lack of understanding can lead to incomplete pre-commissioning tasks that cause bigger problems later. For example, poorly done flushing can leave debris inside mechanical piping, and lumber that remains within pipes will restrict flows during later performance testing. The project is delayed while pipes are dismantled to remove debris during critical path commissioning activities, causing you to miss your in-service date because of poorly performed flushing many months earlier.
• Vendor startups are typical pre-commissioning activities to be completed once the gear is installed. Vendor startups must be thoroughly completed to confirm there has been no damage to equipment after shipping and installation, and that equipment is ready for further integration and system testing. Any poorly performed equipment startups will be a weak link in the system and delay commissioning and startup activities. This requires that FAT must align with SAT activities to confirm proper equipment installations.
• Out-of-sequence construction deliverables impact the subsequent commissioning and startup activities. When subsystems are installed in the wrong sequence, commissioning is delayed while prerequisite systems are made available. There is typically a very specific sequence that must be followed for the startup, and construction deliverables must align with this for efficient completion of the project.
• Construction groups may think that they dictate how commissioning will take place. They can become bullies, unwilling to collaborate with the commissioning team, and make harmful decisions to end up delaying the project’s in-service date. We want to avoid these situations and instead have construction and commissioning groups work collaboratively to make best-for-project decisions.
• It is harmful to projects when construction groups do not recognize commissioning as a distinct phase of projects that is separate from construction, and managed by another group. Or worse, commissioning groups that report to construction. This is not in the best interest of projects, and significantly impacts the ability to complete on-time and on-budget.

These issues ultimately lead to Cowboy commissioning, where the commissioning team is scrambling to try to get systems to function, fixing mistakes made earlier in the project, as the in-service date is missed with lots of pressure to get the project complete.  With this approach, the plant facilities are unreliable due to poor quality, which impacts the ability to effectively operate and maintain the new facilities.

On-Site Commissioning

When commissioning is integrated into procurement, design, and construction processes, you’ll have equipment arriving at site that has been properly tested in the factory, there are far less design issues in the field, and you’ll have a smooth handover from construction to commissioning.

But if commissioning is left to the end of your project, with a Cowboy Commissioning approach, you’re guaranteed to experience these problems:

• You are constantly firefighting issues on-site, working 16-hour days to try to keep your head above water. You’re never able to proactively get ahead of site activities and are always reacting to issues.
• Every discussion on-site about commissioning results in disputes and even more confusion. Nobody agrees on what needs to be done, and even when you appear to have an agreement, everybody does something different anyways.
• You’re under extreme pressure to complete commissioning, even though you know systems aren’t being tested properly. You’re forced to take shortcuts to achieve milestones, but this is not producing reliable systems that can be depended upon for critical infrastructure once the project is complete.
• Ongoing operation and maintenance of new facilities after the project is complete costs 20% – 30% more than expected due to poor commissioning.
• Downtime in excess of 1% is costing you millions in lost revenue due to poorly commissioned systems that are impacting your plant reliability.
• You have unplanned shutdowns or outages at least once per month to repair unreliable equipment that was not properly commissioned, costing you millions of dollars in lost revenue.
• Plant operators will be complaining that they are not getting what they need from the project, and that nothing works, with unplanned shutdowns/outages continually required to fix issues that should have been fixed earlier in the project. These unplanned shutdowns cost you significant sums of money as you are unable to use your new plant facilities.

Now if your projects are like most, I bet you are missing 1 or more of these pillars. And I can guess that your projects are suffering from some or all of these common problems, resulting in delays and cost overruns. Every project is the same, and it never seems to get any better, we’ve been hearing this in the industry for decades with no improvement.

However, all of these pillars must be part of integrated commissioning. If even one of these pillars is missing, there will be delays and there will be cost-overruns later during on-site commissioning. Following the Integrated Commissioning Method is your best and cheapest insurance to deliver your project on-time and on-budget.

So right now you have a choice – you can continue working on projects as it’s always been done, with the same problems at the end of your projects – the same issues between construction and commissioning groups – the same complaints about the engineers that don’t understand commissioning – and the same time crunch at the end of projects to scramble to get commissioning completed. In fact, this is exactly what most people will do and is why only 8.5% of projects are completed on-time and on-budget.

Or, you can be the type of person who focuses on confidence and gains the one thing that all people have who work on successful projects, to improve your project outcomes.

And if that’s you, then click below to enroll in our Free 3-Day Mini-Course to learn more about the industry-best commissioning processes being used by all the successful projects.

I’ll see you in the mini-course!