Well, it’s not so much a secret, it’s just that a systems-based approach to completing projects is not explained or taught in any project management literature that’s out there. Which is unfortunate, since project managers need to know how to structure their projects for completion.
I remember years ago when I studied and passed the PMP exam, I thought I was ready to take on any project with my newly minted certification. But my expectations quickly met reality. Looking back now, it is hard to believe that I did not come across the words “systematization” or “commissioning” even once when learning about project management. While I knew all the terminology for Gantt charts, charters, budgets, and WBS, these are all things to start a project, and I was wholly unprepared to finish a project.
Projects are complex, and it’s a challenge to make sure that all the big and small details come together at the end to deliver high-quality systems that can be used for decades of reliable operation. Without a project management approach to methodically complete commissioning, all the pieces of projects quickly get scattered, and it’s difficult to make sense of it all.
This is one of the main reasons to have commissioning folks involved early in projects – to help project managers systematize the project and align all activities for a smooth completion in the end.
A systems-based approach is the only method to group projects into manageable sections for completion in stages. Systematization is different than your project WBS or AWP methods. Systematization requires a systems-based approach to group equipment into functional systems that aligns with how your project will be started up.
Let’s look at an example – assume there are five systems that make up your project – System A, System B, System C, System D, System E. There is typically a fairly rigid startup sequence you have to follow to start up the facilities based on technical dependencies. For example, if System E is your auxiliary power systems and System C is your chemical dosing system, System E will be required to start up before System C since you need power to the chemical dosing system first. In this way, the sequence that construction groups complete each system is best to align identically with your commissioning and startup sequence to meet your project in-service date. For example, your startup sequence may require systems in this order – E, C, A, D, B.
The problem is, a lot of project teams involve commissioning groups too late in projects to determine systematization. In the absence of systematization and the sequence that each system must be completed, design and construction groups have to make their own assumptions on how to complete their work. The contract is typically pretty light on these details, with may only have a few big milestone dates defined, and construction groups have to make their own assumptions based on the project WBS. Based on their assumptions, they may have determined it is best to complete half of System A and half of System C, then 5 weeks later complete System B and the other half of System A, and so on.
Based on this sequence, they have generated procurement plans for long lead equipment, they have hired workforces with specialized installation skillsets based on their construction sequence. And they’ve developed their best estimate in how to complete each section of the work. They are planning based on the best information that they have at the time, and this is not anyone’s fault if construction completions do not align with your commissioning and startup sequence. But by the time commissioning folks are involved half way through construction, it is very late to try to change these plans to re-align construction completions and commissioning without significant impact.
When commissioning folks engage in the project mid-construction and then start to suggest changes, this usually doesn’t go over too well.
Instead, a better approach is to define how the project will be completed at the beginning of projects. The earlier you inform construction groups (ideally in contracts) for how the project will be systematized and how their work needs to complete to align with commissioning, the easier it is for them to plan within these constraints. This avoids expensive change orders, optimizes all work plans, and allows a smooth transition from construction to commissioning to achieve project in-service dates.
Nobody likes changes on projects – design changes, schedule changes, cost increases – and when more upfront information on commissioning and how the project will be completed is provided, changes can be reduced. The tendency on projects is to defer commissioning to later, but when more upfront commissioning information is made available by having commissioning folks involved in planning discussions earlier, all groups have a much clearer understanding of what success looks like during commissioning.
As mentioned earlier, this is one of the main reasons to have commissioning folks involved early in projects – to plan commissioning in conjunction with design and construction so that all groups can optimize their plans for efficient completion. It does not make sense to withhold commissioning information from design and construction groups when they are planning their activities, since they’ll have to make their own assumptions which will be difficult (and expensive) to change later when completing the project during commissioning.
Project managers must be aware of the consequences of delaying commissioning information when design and construction groups are planning their work. The most efficient and cost effective approach is for project teams to take a systems-based approach to completing projects right from the start, so all groups on projects can collaboratively plan for success.
Recent Comments