If you want to lose less time during capital project completions and commissioning, then there are 5 frameworks that you need to include in projects using the Integrated Completions Methodology. These 5 frameworks are:

• Completions in Contracts
• Completions in FEED
• Completions in FAT And IFAT
• Construction Completions
• CSU Workflow Completions

All 5 frameworks are required in order for the last 25% of capital projects to be successful during construction completions and commissioning.

Completions in Contracts

Integrated Completions are required in design and construction contracts as well as equipment procurement contracts. When design and construction contracts define all technical and commercial completion processes for construction completions and commissioning, project teams are able to successfully work together to get the job done without any disputes on who is responsible for each activity and with no confusion on the path to follow to get to the end of the project. When completions are properly defined in equipment procurement contracts, you have confidence in the equipment being delivered to site and that it will function as needed for your on-site testing activities.

But when completions are not embedded in design and construction contracts, the last 25% of your project can quickly go off-track. Completion requirements and completion processes are missing, with lots of confusion, lots of disputes, and lots of missing details that impact commissioning and startup and ultimately delay your project completion. The CSU workflows to follow are unknown and all project groups are unclear on how to complete projects. It is a scramble at the end of projects to figure out what to do on-the-fly, which adds to the time to complete projects as project participants spend more time talking about what to do rather than focusing on getting the work done according to already established frameworks in contracts. The same applies to equipment procurement contracts when completion details are not included. Testing in the factory is missed, additional tests need to be conducted on-site, and you have less confidence that the equipment you are receiving will meet its intended function. The result is more delays as issues are discovered late in your project delivery cycle, equipment being shipped back to the factory for repair, and delays on-site as latent issues are discovered that should have been caught in the factory.

Completions in FEED

Integrated Completion processes must be embedded into Front End Engineering & Design (FEED) activities to complete the feedback loop from the end of projects during commissioning to the beginning of projects during engineering design. This feedback loop allows the beginning and end of projects to be aligned to ensure all project phases are focused on the same end-goal of projects. Providing commissioning and operational input during preliminary and detailed design phases, as well as input to critical design packages such as control and HMI systems, allows the designers to incorporate feedback and meet the expectations of groups involved later in the project. This ensures there are no surprises and that projects can be successfully completed.

But when Integrated Completions are not included in FEED, designs are completed in isolation from other project groups, and any potential issues are only discovered much later in your project delivery cycle. Issues with the HMI screens are much more challenging to accommodate once designs have been deployed to the field for commissioning. Design layouts are much more expensive to modify once they have already been installed, for systems that are not able to be effectively operated and maintained. Any disconnect between design groups at the beginning of projects and commissioning and operating groups at the end of projects will cause delays during critical path commissioning as the issues are resolved in the field. Delays during commissioning can be mitigated by providing upfront feedback during FEED to align the beginning and end of projects.

Completions in FAT and IFAT

The Integrated Completions Methodology defines the testing to be performed during FAT, and particularly for more complex testing during Integrated FAT. The tests to complete during FAT are pretty straightforward, but must align with your test philosophy during on-site SAT. When FAT and SAT are aligned (starting in contracts), off-site and on-site testing are more efficient to ensure that nothing gets missed, but also to evaluate risks of what testing should be repeated on-site versus what testing is sufficient for only one or the other test environments. More complex IFAT programs require in-depth discussion and analysis to ensure hardware and software are fully integrated and tested in the factory with manufactured hardware in a simulated environment. When Integrated Completions are embedded within IFAT protocols, less time is lost during critical-path on-site testing.

But when Integrated Completions are not included in FAT and IFAT, off-site testing is disconnected from on-site testing activities. When vendors perform testing in the factory that does not correlate to on-site testing, or ship equipment to site with missing tests or latent defects, this impacts on-site testing progress as issues are addressed. Tests may be unnecessarily repeated, or critical tests in the factory not be completed without the required authorization to ship notifications. Since the software is a critical component of control and protection cubicles, hardware cubicles are useless without programming, and it’s not possible to verify the functionality of the hardware alone without integrating the software. When IFAT is not performed or when it is conducted with only half-finish logic, all the issues that should have been identified in the factory are instead deferred to site. Instead of commissioning on-site, the team spends time finishing the development of the logic, debugging the code, and integrating the hardware and software for correct operation prior to proceeding with commissioning. It’s not uncommon for this integration to take a lot longer than expected if several issues are encountered. Not including Integrated Completions in FAT and IFAT can severely delay your projects, cause damage to equipment, and create unsafe working environments for critical control and monitoring systems.

Construction Completions

Integrated Completion processes must be defined for the organized completion of each subsystem installation in order to confirm completions and that nothing is missed to cause snags during commissioning. When methodically organized and managed in software systems, every construction detail is able to be tracked and nothing gets missed. Everyone has visibility of what is required to complete each subsystem, you have much more confidence that commissioning can proceed with minimal snags, and all project groups are able to work collaboratively to get the job done.

But when Integrated Completions are not embedded in the handover of subsystems from construction groups to commissioning groups, project teams very quickly lose track of the details and the status of each subsystem. Multiple subsystems in various stages of completion become impossible to keep track of with manually updated spreadsheets. Missing details during handover delay commissioning as issues are discovered and subsystems are returned to construction groups with deficiencies. There are no clear roles and responsibilities of who is responsible for what, and the finger-pointing gets even worse. The end of your project quickly becomes a scramble to get commissioning completed in half the time as you encounter more delays due to things that were missed.

CSU Completion Frameworks

The Integrated Commissioning Methodology defines the workflows to follow during each stage of on-site testing. Gated commissioning workflows are followed, with a signoff of each milestone before moving to the next stage, so that nothing gets missed and testing can proceed efficiently. The project management structure that is established allows all groups to see the status of subsystems as they progress through each workflow so there are no surprises. This structured process allows capital projects to be completed as efficiently as possible, with less lost time due to the big and small issues that typically delay projects.

But when Integrated Completion workflows are not established on projects (starting in contracts), the work becomes very challenging to manage. Everyone has their own interpretation of what they think the path to completion is, and nobody can agree on what is required to achieve each project milestone. With multiple subsystems being worked on concurrently, the details get lost, and it is difficult to know where things are at. Pretty soon the only thing you can do is cross your fingers and hope somehow that you can get to the end. The commercial disputes get in the way of progressing the work, and you’re just trying to get one step at a time to get to the end, not knowing exactly when you’ll get there.

Integrated Completions Methodology

These 5 frameworks make up the Integrated Completions Methodology, and they apply to all industrial plant processes such as power systems, renewable energy systems, manufacturing facilities, treatment facilities, processing facilities, and mining. If you’re having any of the problems listed above, I guarantee you’re missing one of these Integrated Completion frameworks in your capital project delivery processes.

When all of these elements are combined, project teams are able to complete capital projects as efficiently as possible. When one or more is missing, it becomes extremely difficult to meet your project objectives. Include these Integrated Completion frameworks in your project planning processes so that projects lose less time during construction completions and commissioning.