ICxA Global Knowledge Roundtable

Paul Turner: Hello, everyone. Welcome to today’s session. We’ve got a fantastic group of individuals here that are going to share their expertise and really a first-of-its-kind global roundtable where we’re going to discuss some problems that are challenging all projects all over the world in all industries. And we’re going to get some unique perspectives across the globe on how people are addressing some of these challenges. So I’d like to first introduce David Tain. David is the VP of Latin America and the Chairman of our ICXA Technical Committee. David, why don’t you start and set us up for today’s discussion?

David Tain: Yeah, of course. Thank you so much, Paul and in this form. Good morning, and this is 5:30 AM here in Calgary, AB. So, but good evening and good afternoon for you guys in different parts of the world. Paul, to me it’s a real great privilege to be here with you and be part of this first of it’s kind initiative, as you mentioned, that you know brings together all these professionals from all over the world. You’re going to see that, you know, the panellists were having, and that’s a thing as a, as a chairman of the technical committee, this is one of the key mandates that we established, right? So to build these practices, to build these spaces of cross collaboration right across the world where knowledge is shared in all the industry as the markets advance and adapt to new business constraints, right?

One of the things, and this is driving this, this mandate, and it’s steering it, is that across the committees, we see across the world, organizations face similar challenges. And what they do is they solve it in isolation, right? This knowledge stays fragmented across regions, disciplines, and industries. It gets totally isolated. So by bringing this collective intelligence for we analyze these challenges from different lenses. We induce creative solutions to these global common problems and we also induce the emergence of the best possible practices by combining this knowledge, which eventually also will feed the standards and will improve the whole execution ecosystem, right?

That’s on one side, and on the other side, we are also steering the research agenda. For the advancement of the profession as markets evolve, right? So this is actually one of the key things that I’m strongly in agreement with knowledge is, is, is is not static knowledge evolves, and we need to evolve with it. And that’s a whole, one of the whole mandates of the technical committees not to be stagnant, but also evolve and co-evolve with the business environment, right. So we’re, we’re moving from what we call an isolated expertise to a shared intelligence at a global scale.

And these forms are both knowledge sharing platforms and catalysts for innovation, for commissioning outcome assurance and operational readiness, right? So ultimately we want to deliver to induce the delivery of safe, reliable, sustainable projects that, that, that end maximizing the value to organizations. That’s essentially, you know, the, the, the, the base of all these committees, the mandate of the technical committees and these ICxA Knowledge, global knowledge roundtables, which, as I mentioned in the beginning, I have the great privilege to be part of the first one.

And, and without more delay, I’m going to introduce our panellists today. We have 6 panellists from all different corners of the world.

We have Andres Mesa joining us from the United States. He’s a commissioning professional with over 15 years of experience in the oil and gas industry.

We have joining us from the Netherlands. We have Andre Goosens, who has over 2 decades of experience in bioenergy and oil and gas assets.

Wellington Colombo, joining us from Brazil. I was actually there a couple of weeks ago. He has two decades of experience in mining and renewable energy projects.

James Tuller is joining us from Norway. He has 20 years of experience in land-based aquaculture projects.

We have Jav joining us from Qatar. He also has 20 years of experience in oil and gas projects and operating assets.

And from China, joining us, Jason Miao has over 20 years of experience in processing services in the energy sector.

Welcome. Thank you so much for joining us. Thank you so much for taking the time. And I’m very excited to see you guys here. And without more delay, we’re going to start with the first question.

The Critical Difference: Ready to Start vs. Ready to Operate. So before we start, the format for the people that is recently joining us is we’re going to post questions to the panel. The age panellists are going to have two minutes to respond to the question and share their perspective based on their industry, their personal experiences and their discipline. Without more delay, the first question we’re going to start with Andres, what has been your experience with projects being ready to start, and persons ready to operate? And particularly with that, Andres, can you share any results you’ve seen when organizations assume readiness and start up instead of proving it?

Andres Mesa: Thank you, thank you, David and thank you for the invitation. I’m very excited to be part of ICxA. So this is great, great space. So what I’ve seen is a lot of project they are, they say they are a way to start, but being truly a way to operate is a whole different ball game. Yeah. So the gap, and that gap is where most of the risk resides. In my experienced way to start is often defined as construction completion or mechanical completion milestones where systems are handed over, all documentation is in place or lacking, and there is a general belief that operations can take it from there.

Yeah, but to say that you are way to operate it up, it means much more than that. It actually means that you need fully validated systems, trained operators, proven procedures, and integrated testing to ensure that everything is going to run safely and reliably from the get-go. So when organisations assume that they are good to start up without really checking everything, in the US, the solid commissioning and operational training process, we start seeing all these issues popping up quite fast. Now. Now you’re dealing with showdowns, you’re having to redo work or even safety incidents, all because systems weren’t fully function tested or interfaces weren’t properly validated, right?

This often results in delays on scales and rising costs, etc. So when teams do actually take the time to prove that they are ready to operate through integrated system testing or an operational range assessment, defining clear asymptote criteria does when start-ups go smoother there, there is a faster ramp up to capacity, and there is no as many surprises than you typically find out. No properly tested plants, no. So for us and for me, the chelation is the startup is not just the test, it’s actually the confirmation that everything’s going to go.

David Tain: Thanks. Very well. Thank you so much, Andres. How about you from the Andre Goosens? What is your perspective?

Andre Goosens: To me, the question is even earlier: if there is a discussion at the moment, what is ready to operate or what is ready to start up. There’s a huge difference between those two. And in my world, I’m always with my people there. Even before that arises. We do the FATs, we go to the factories, we accept, we release something for being, being ready to ship to the site. All of that should be part of the mandate of the people doing commissioning. You are on-site on a daily basis. You look at what the status is, you know what the status is. And if you have a very nice commissioning strategy document there, you will also have all your definitions of what I am doing, at what moment, what is happening.

My team and I are the people deciding when it is mechanically complete, when we want to take it over from construction, and when we are trying to hand it down to operations. And it’s not sooner than that moment. So yes, there is a real issue within companies, a real insight into where management thinks they are ready to operate and when in the real world we know they are ready to operate.

David Tain: Excellent. Well, thank you so much, Andre. Let’s move on to Brazil, Wellington.

Wellington Colombo: Hi, everyone. Good morning. Well, as everybody is saying, the most important lesson for me is start up and operation readiness are completely different things, although most of the people still have a misconception about that. In my experience, projects are very good at delivering assets, but operations don’t consume assets; they consume stable production, reliability, safety, and something like this gets a little confusing.

So what is critical when something is missing after the handover? We don’t have trained operations, we don’t have integrated maintenance routines, and this caused a lot of problems that our colleagues said caused these delays in achieving the, this throughput of the plant, things like that. I think that this is the most important thing to separate things and to put some things before the commissioner phase, because when the project finishes and the room is set up, it starts. Normally, you have a crisis if things are not already in place. So because of that, it’s very important to separate our team dedicated only to operational writers instead of only having the operations and the projects. I think this is the most important thing, OK?

David Tain: Interesting insights now, thank you so much. Wellington from Norway. James, how do you see this?

James Tuller: Hi David, pleasure to be here with you guys today. Yeah, you know, with land-based aquaculture, you’re dealing with live organisms. So you need to have a good understanding not only of technology, but also of biology, you know, the biology of the end product being the fish. And not having a good enough understanding of how those two actually function and work together can really grade the area between what is ready to start, and what means ready to operate. You know, since some of the projects I’ve been in, when you start to not understand where that boundary goes, you can’t call it a handover because all you’re doing really is going into troubleshooting straight away.

It should be a production phase, and it is, and it’s a troubleshooting phase. So in the, in my, my last employment, we actually added an extra stage to our cycle called ready for Fish. So, even though we knew that technology was good to go, we also knew that the biology side was good to go. For example, you know, the, the, the biological filter, the moving bed bioreactor that we had required a couple of months to actually start up and be mature enough to handle the size of the, of the load coming from the fish on day one. If that biological filter is not ready to take that and handle that load, you know, you get a nitrite spike in the system, which can basically be lethal and kill the fish on day one.

You know, so you, you, you can fail quite easily on day one if you do not understand how your end product and the biology of technology actually hang together and work together.

David Tain: Excellent. Thank you so much, James, for that great contribution. How do you see that from your side in Qatar, Jav?

Jav: Hey all, it’s absolutely a pleasure to be here today. And you know, the Middle East is actually the board center up in there, and some of the most significant energy projects in the world are there. And currently in Qatar, we have the world’s most significant energy project ongoing, and other countries in the region all have these major projects. And I’m not going to talk about any specific project here. But in general, most of the projects we work on when the commissioning is not in the Ryder standard framework since day one, we’ll have a delay, and this delay comes at a very expensive and this comes with trouble for operation later on.

This is why the ICxA can help and put the framework and the standards. And if that’s followed, then the simple completion task comes to an outcome assurance. And right now we have the situation of Hormuz and the war. So it makes it even more important to put a proper standard for commissioning to ensure you are not delaying the project to have everything delivered. And by having everything since day one, from the subsystem definition using the right framework to the day that you’re going to hand over to operations. If a proper standard is in place, then success will be assured. So that’s what I can say well.

David Tain: That’s great. Especially, you know, as I mentioned at the beginning, not only are your different geographies, different industries, but also this significant different emerging situations. Like, you know what, we have the Strait of Hormuz. Exactly right. So we’re, we have, we need robust standards and best practices across the world to deliver. And well, finally, Jason, Jason from China. What do you think?

Jason Miao: I think for the Asia project, there are two parts. I think #1 is a lot of fabrication coming from all over the world, from North America, the Middle East, and Europe are fabricated here. That’s due to the fact that, trying to do cost saving, a lot of commissioning work was done early down in those yards, often because of the language issue and then different standards. That’s using a very basic example. Lubar flushing was not done properly, so when the modules were shipped to the final destination, there was no proper record happened in the yards, which potentially the operator and the EPC have to redo the work or down to the flange management that was not properly managed.

There’s a huge amount of cost associated with if the tightening or the sporting being down into the level where the Middle East standard or the US standard in different ways. So there’s a huge gap for the knowledge to be what’s ready in this kind of conversation. And then you come with the international operator coming to Asia to invest, passing to the likes of Papua New Guinea or Vietnam where there’s a significant non language barrier, local talent, skill gap and also be able to understand what it means by delivering the US standard or European standard. There’s a huge need for the industry to talk about what commissioning standard or reassurance needed at this stage. So exactly like you said, what is ready, what’s the definition of ready? And similar to some other people who are talking using different cases just now, that this readiness is very much indeed having a community to drive, to standardize, to have a same understanding, because everything all of us know in Commission commissioning is about communication, how you can communicate more clearly, regularlessly to actually bridge the gap.

I think that’s huge important for our industry to bring to the table.

David Tain: You know, interesting teams emerging in this first question and one of the couple things that I can draw is the emphasis that operational awareness, outcome assurance and and commissioning our socio-technical problems as we have mentioned progressively from the technical committees and we’re doing more research on that. Without a doubt this is a socio technical problem that requires higher all the capabilities in organizations. So Paul, you want to take the second question?

Paul Turner: Bridging the Gap: Commissioning’s Role in Project Success. Sure. Yeah. So interested to hear everybody’s perspective on commissioning really being the bridge to close the gap between ready to start and ready to operate. So let’s start with yourself, Wellington. What are your thoughts?

Wellington Colombo: That’s a very tricky question because many people think that the commissioner is the most important thing in preparing for an operation. But many times, most of the technical conditions are already defined before that. During the earlier phases and probably in the commissioner phase, it is too late to solve these problems and close the gap. So we should start much earlier with all these operational readiness processes in place, the integration between teams, the interface, solving problems, just to avoid delaying everything to the commissioner phase, because otherwise, perhaps there’s not enough time to do this. People are very stressed with the pressure of the schedule, and so many times it’s not enough. So when we enter the ramp-up, things are getting worse again in the crisis. So, what I think the commissioner phase is a very important part of Operation Red, but to start the entire structure, we’ll have to solve many problems before and to prepare to enter the commissioner phase, OK.

Paul Turner: Excellent points for sure. Preparing early is always critical. Next, let’s hear from Jav. What are your thoughts on commissioning acting as the bridge?

Jav: Yeah, you know, actually, in commissioning, sometimes you need, especially in oil and gas, that’s actually operating. You know, especially when we are doing this, we call the IT service test lots of times. What we are doing in commissioning, we are operating, and you know, we spend a lot of time when we are doing some soft test, which is called OTP, you know, operational tests first year. So basically, it is very connected, and this is why it is so important that we have what is missing today in the projects in energy projects, these standards and frameworks needed for commissioning to make sure that the safe commissioning is equal to safe operation and successful commissioning is successful operation. And when it comes to energy, oil and gas are so critical.

And basically that bridge is, is a, is a very small bridge is almost connected. So to give an example, people who are doing a lot of piping activities, you know, before when we didn’t have asthma standards, for example, nothing was in place and a lot of the time we had problems with piping. But since asthma comes to the place, there are standards for piping, everybody follows the asthma B 31.3 for hydro test. And since we don’t have any problem with the companies that are following that standard. That’s mandatory, actually, to do that. And that makes the piping come ready to operate and ensure the commissioning and operation. That’s what I put it in the same thing. That’s the same thing that, in the same way, piping comes ready to operate, by having a standard in place, the commissioning of the equipment of the project together altogether, the subsystem commissioning comes ready to operate, safe to operate once it’s the right framework, and that’s where I think they can offer the help.

Paul Turner: A theme I’m hearing lots, and I definitely agree, is that for such a critical operational and safety process, a standardized method to get there is definitely required. So I’m interested to hear from you, James, in aquaculture, you kind of touched upon it in your previous answer. How does commissioning act as the bridge to close the gap?

James Tuller: Well, to be honest, I agree with Wellington and a point that Jason touched on there that, you know, commissioning is a bridge in the project, but it comes in much earlier. You know, commissioning is the only, really one of the only real teams that sees every aspect of the project. And when it holds, it holds a civil contract in the left hand and holds the operations team in the in the right hand. And it helps bring those two different worlds together and it helps prevent all the project teams working in silos. So that also means that the commissioning team is not only the bridge, it brings these different worlds together, but it also builds a communication bridge. So by bringing all these different worlds together, you bring everybody under the same roof. Just to start to discuss what is readiness mean across all these different areas and preventing this the siloing to look to occur in the project.

You know, it really it, it helps bring, bring out the difference between technical completion and operational confidence where, you know, operations are integrated early into the project through commissioning into design phase, for example, so that they have, they actually have a say in, in the design reviews. You know, they, they need to operate it, they need to run it, they need to maintain it. So it’s quite important, it’s quite important that the the commissioning teams involved in in projects understand how they build that bridge to ensure that these different worlds come together.

Paul Turner: That’s definitely a good point for sure. Commissioning is really the bridge that pulls all the systems together, pulls all the people together to align systems, processes and people at the end. Next, let’s hear from Andre Goosens. What are your thoughts on commissioning acting as the bridge to close the gap?

Paul Turner: You mentioned a lot of those critical interfaces, too. I want to go back to this question, David, on these critical interfaces and transfer of assets through these various phases, right, because these interfaces are important, but we often see that this transfer is compromised by again interface misalignment. So what are the long-term consequences on asset performance as we move into operational readiness when these critical interfaces and asset transfers aren’t managed correctly?

Andre Goosens: Yeah. Well, most, most remarks were already made, but I got a couple of points in in this case, Paul. Thank you. What I normally try to do is, I’ll when construction runs towards an end and they want to say OK, we’re done with construction, I’ll see if I can grab one of the construction guys into the commissioning team. On the other hand, what I will also pull into my commissioning team is one or two of the the lead operators. And then that makes it quite interesting when you then see the discussion in planning readiness and proving readiness. Next to that we are proofing, proofing readiness. For me the start up is part of my commissioning scheme that’s into my my system. It even want to go a little bit further. The 1st 14 days, 24 hours a day trial run for me is still part of commissioning because that’s when the things come out that nobody really thought about. As an example, freezing of level measurements, that sort of stuff. We can think about it, we can work towards it, but certain things happen. Nature will always be there. We cannot escape the laws of physics. So you will find things. Whenever you’re thinking of being ready, think twice, be ready. We’re getting back to Rabbit 1001. It is coming there again.

Paul Turner: Love your analogies. You’ve had some great analogies in this discussion. Andre, your rabbits out of the hat is a perfect analogy. I really like that one. All right, let’s hear from Andres Mesa. What are your thoughts?

Andres Mesa: Yeah. For me, again it’s about start, start early. And by start early, I mean through the implementation of a structured framework to commissioning and Operation Readiness, something that should start from the early stages of the project, as discovered before mature as more as engineering progresses, there is better condition of construction and as well as we get aligned with operations. So that’s what I am key to having this framework fully integrated, also with operations and commissioning, just to ensure all of the operational requirements are there upfront and to work together to ensure milestones, sequences, and extra priorities are clearly defined and then integrated into commissioning, construction and engineering. Having this kind of mindset of an end in mind, where you start early, then commissioning operations and getting into a game. So you actually plan with the end in mind approach for your engineering construction, too. Another thing that I think is key is to implement a proper completion management system and implemented across the entire project as a single source of truth. We we found that as a key factor to make a price successful during the commissioning and surface.

Paul Turner: Excellent points. I agree for sure. All right, Jason, what are your thoughts on commissioning as the bridge to close the gap?

Jason Miao: I think we talk about the bridge, we talk about operations, I think we talk about construction from my peers’ points of view, those are hugely important. But I even want to bring a little bit forward between the design, where often people think, you know, we’re doing the basic detailed engineering. Why do we need commissioning people in this phase? There’s nothing on the plan yet, but I bet everyone of us who’s been in commissioning for this many years would have the experience. So you know, when you are doing certain chemical cleaning, there is a flange that’s not being properly done, or there are missing vents for the draining for steam blows, or you know, there’s no access for hydro milling. So you’re left with a section of the pipe that’s not being cleaned properly. That can potentially cost you millions of dollars to repair the turbine downstream in the steam system. So I think this bridge is not just you know, we’re trying to connect the dots from A to B, let’s get the plant operating, but it’s also about the longevity of what we are showing the assets for the owners to operate in those assets for the long term without the huge impact on the financials later on. We are in the front end, helping develop some of the design issues, how things can be done more effectively to minimize those last-minute changes, last-minute engineering, last-minute pipe cutting or wire instrumentation, and those are hugely costly. Even just ripping down the you know the scaffolding and insulations, those are a huge amount of cost for this. So I think not just bridging a gap, but also where we’re inputting to put this gap close ahead of the time is a true really mission for the commissioning scheme institution to influence in the industry going forward.

Paul Turner: Excellent point. It’s almost like more than bridging the gap, it’s kind of protecting the outcome right from the start. So, definitely appreciate that point. All right, David, I’ll turn it over to you to bring up the next question.

David Tain: Uncovering Hidden Readiness Issues When Assets Go Live. Yeah. A few key insights that I’ve been taking from really interesting insights are when this bridge is weak, it’s a risk materialization, and what is occurring. In my opinion, these risks are always going to propagate and your paradise, as you mentioned, Paul, the outcome of the entire Boris. We’re not delivering scopes beyond that; we’re delivering outcomes. And that’s, that’s essentially where the entire mind shift needs to happen across the globe, making sure that, yeah, we need to deliver effective, efficient projects. At the same time, you know, we need to avoid all these risks to propagate towards operations, which ultimately is the end objective. So begin with an end in mind and keep that end in mind across the life cycle. And with that is, is, is a key topic of today. Which I’m going to build it to do that. And I want right now this, this question is particular to each, each piece of your experience. So, where do we differentiate between ready to start and ready to operate? So based on your timing projects, what, what, what, what are the key aspects in your industry, in your projects or readiness that only become visible when the asset is live and more importantly, right now with that knowledge, what are your recommendations? What are your views on surfacing them and addressing them early? Let’s start with James.

James Tuller: Perfect. Thanks, David. Yeah, this is quite an interesting question and I actually would like to highlight the some of the parts of the the contracts that I’ve seen that can be problematic and that is around normal and abnormal commissioning, which is can be a big oversight and a costly oversight because it’s not, it’s not always the big technical problems that carry the financial risks. It’s the small gaps that ’cause these big risks. So I the easiest way to explain it is to have an example of in one of the projects I sat in, we said to the project manager, we need to test the system under normal conditions and abnormal conditions. So, in normal conditions, 6 tanks, full circulation, full stability, abnormal 3 tanks and how you actually bring stability by understanding which parts of the system need to be isolated to maintain that stability. The project manager says no, abnormal conditions are not in the contract. We are only delivering under normal conditions. OK, hand over the department. A week later, the client calls up and says, ” Hey, we have problems.

We’re using it with three tanks, but we don’t know how to handle the system to keep it stable. We’re losing oxygen in the system. We have a couple of $100,000 worth of fish in here, and we need help to solve it. Couldn’t solve it on SCADA. Ended up sending a commissioner engineer up who solved it in 10 minutes by doing a line walk of the oxygenation system and finding an A manual valve that was open that should have been closed to isolate the system. He didn’t know that because he didn’t have any instructions or procedures on how to maintain stability by isolating parts of the system that weren’t used. So the project tried to save money using a manual valve instead of an automated valve to connect it up to SCADA and didn’t want to do abnormal commissioning. So saving a couple of $1000 run the risk of a customer losing a couple of $100,000 in the space for a couple of days.

David Tain: That actually emphasizes, you know, the old ad, she says that they releasing the details. Well, to me, that they releasing the interface is exactly what you’ve explained, right. So Wellington, let’s just cross the Atlantic. Wellington, what is it? What’s your perspective with that?

Wellington Colombo: OK. Thank you, David. Especially in mining perhaps in every approach, but in mine you have the variability as a special issue that many times it shows up only after commissioning and start up. Commissioning start up mostly of the time you have relatively under control environment. We have top management attention, we have the people, everybody is prepared the the order to is separated to do the tests are well, no. But just after the start up variability appears and many times we don’t have the fast decision making that you have in the that you had in the the Commission phase with the top management together. We have a lot of new issues that appear on that. And two, to address that to surface this kind of problems, it’s very important to be prepared before the commissioner phase. So what Jason mentioned to involve the Commission team and the operation team since the early phase, since the design is very important to run simulations to understand bad what can go wrong, the abnormal situations, because to be prepared only to the well known situations is not enough to avoid the ramp up crisis as I call it.

David Tain: You made a really important point, Wellington. I mean, you’re absolutely right. We’re from a project, we’re coming from a relatively controlled environment to a live system that we’re sub components are going to start interacting in ways that we didn’t anticipate, and we’re going to need improvisations. And you know, we can the effects can be from, you know, losing a couple of bucks, a couple of $1000 to have a fatality in the project, right? So the sky is the limit and and it’s exactly that is the anticipation of these scenarios that matters now. Let’s ask Andre Goosens what? What is your perspective?

Andre Goosens: Yeah. Well, thank you, David. Quite, quite simple. I, I have one nice thing that I always say because we’re, we’re trying to say whatever aspects will become visible, you can prepare for, you know, you know, they’re the magician. He can get a rabbit out of his hat while you can prepare for 1000 rabbits, but there will always be rabbit 1001 jumping out of it. So that’s, that’s one of the things you should always keep in mind. As an example of that, we had a very large electrical heater which we tested, which was sand, which was mounted, which was powered up. All of it worked and never we could make the temperature that we needed for it. And at certain moment, luckily it was in the fall when we were commissioning, it was already getting a little bit dark. We opened the box and we looked in the box and at certain moment we saw nice little sparks. And what happened in the end was that when electrical guys were mounting and installing and wiring this heater, at certain moment they had all the wires coming from the electrical connection going into the heater itself because it was AI think about a 300 element heater which we could switch home depending on the demand. We found out that at certain moment somebody had all these wires from the heaters dangling out of the junction box. And then wind hit the cover of the box and the cover fell over and I think 70% of the wires were damaged. There was no way of finding this earlier than when we saw it, luckily in the dark.

David Tain: Really, really interesting. And the more I hear, the more I realize that and the more reinforced the concept that this readiness is, is a function that takes assets from a what if to an even if right so to, to, to cover all the possible scenarios. And that’s pretty much where the value is going to leak. Jav, from your personal experience, what are your thoughts?

Jav: Yeah. You know the early readiness is very, very important especially in large projects. And we to have the readiness criteria for every subsystem has to be defined quite early. And by experience we learn that we need to get the operation team involved quite early and we have to have this readiness gates in place. You know, normally we should always have operations involved to come to visit the subsystem at the time we we call for an RFSU. Now we know I guess that’s really for a start up. But with the lesson land, we invite operations to be involved with us much earlier, even before RFC. We have this discipline certificate at that time. We do the walk down, we invite them. So back to what Jason said, we need to have discoverance at quite early stage and that’s where the standards from ICSS comes to help to give this framework that we define the readiness of each subsystem. And also, we put that together with the sequence of a start up and in when it comes to Middle East at the end, you know, there are many criterias that are unknown. For example, even before this war we had this the the sea transfer issue on the Red Sea. I said that delayed things though at the end of the day can even still face some issues with the readiness. But because we have those things when it comes to technical commissioning readiness, you should have everything in place because we cannot afford any more trouble in the process. So that’s.

David Tain: Thank you so much, Jav. Next, Jason.

Jason Miao: I think I touched points a little bit about how early detect of a certain issue especially in the construction phases. You know, during my time on site on the projects I’ve seen pipes were anticipate for a air blow that was not welded together and we were on standby for almost two months just for them to complete the welding on this pipe which was already installed. Surprising enough, right? Consider hydro tested and then we’ve seen that, you know, we were commissioning the last little 5 meters of the spool that was not able to access to the direct turbine and we were on the last minutes of starting up the plan. And then everyone was pushing for the Commission team saying why don’t we just sign off and we find hammers and we find the hard hats in those five last five meters of pipe that we had to get it out and then proper commissioning otherwise the turbine company wouldn’t provide the warranty for it. There are many, many of those scenarios that you know, I believe everyone have experienced certain things in. In this scenario where we are, you know, consider sometimes the roadblock of getting the plant start. But the reality is if we don’t do a proper job of identify those issues that the clients are facing millions or even more of lost once the plant startup and potentially losing hurt people and you know, causing more serious issues on those sites. I think a lot of those comes with the deep experience from this group that we’re talking not from a mechanical perspective, but also talk about electrical instrumentation, all the multidisciplines, how we can identify to work together and come up with a standard or procedure how to tackle those issues that has huge value in this industry going forward.

David Tain: And finally, Andres, from your personal perspective, right, so how, how, what have you seen that becomes visible once the asset is live, and how can you, you know, help surface earlier.

Andres Mesa: Got a question, David. So a few few come to mind, but I think system interfaces and interpendencies. So even if you test a system separately, when you start putting everything on and start working all together, all a lot of issues just pop up issue with control logic or sequencing that are mixed up and they don’t work well. Yeah. Also we found issues on operability versus functional functionality. So just because the equipment works, it doesn’t mean that it’s easy or even safe to operate or is very difficult to do maintenance on it. So that’s or even access to equipment. So that’s another issue that we found when we have when we are actually like operating a site. Another issue that we we have seen is people wearing it. So even if we put people to training, when we put new people to actually operate a facility, you start finding that they are not confident of there is not enough real life knowledge to actually properly operate the plant. And another, another big one, it was mentioned before, it’s about performance and reliability, high scale. So we we don’t do proper dynamic commissioning and we we take the systems, but we don’t pull the system enough to actually see how they will behave on the real, real conditions on when they’re getting close to the work full capacity. Yeah. So solutions to that that comes to mind to me is full system integration testing. You can achieve that. You have proper commissioning planning and in Commission operations from the get go in the project, truly a strong dynamic testing on your systems to push the systems to real conditions as as as close as possible. So that works quite well with operators is getting opera strength on the job by getting operators involved in commissioning. Yeah. So not only theoretical training, but actually bring operators into the commission’s team so they can live and get familiar with the leave the process of commissioning, pre commissioning, commissioning and actually get really familiar with the with the site. Yeah, there are a few things that come to mind.

David Tain: Thank you. There’s a great insight on this particular question, and we can see how different perspectives and shapes, you know, address global common problems that we have. Ultimately, you know we want predictable projects, reliable operations and sustained value, right. So it’s generation for organization that’s exactly what we want. And these these kind of knowledge sharing each of these assist and help organizations and the entire, as I mentioned the the entire execution ecosystem. What do you take us for, the last word, the last question, Paul?

Paul Turner: Proactive Strategies for Planning and Proving Operational Readiness. Last question here for sure. And after this question, once we go through all the responses here, we’ll go through any questions from the audience. I see that there’s some already in the comments. So, as we’re going through this last question, if you can think of any comments you want answered by this expert panel, please shoot them in the comments, and we’ll go through them at the end once we go through this last question. So this last question is, what is your approach to planning for readiness and proving readiness before the asset goes live?

And maybe we’ll start with you, Jason, because I know you’ve got some other commissioning commitments here. So let’s hear your thoughts on this question.

Jason Miao: Thank you, Paul. I think it’s been a really good dialogue. I appreciate everyone here. I think one of the keywords about commissioning is also proactive. We talk a lot, a lot about early planning, early engagement. I think all that comes down to proactive and get into early stage of thinking about all the possible scenarios that could happened and then set out a strategy or operating procedure to avoid those issues happen on later on. A big portion of that is avoid surprises, avoid bring the job, the project certainty, bring the reliability, bring the safety to the project environment. That should be the front center of a lot of things we do even, you know, we talk about bridging the gaps and that’s being proactive to tackle what are the possible issues and what’s the possible problems we’re going to have. I think that should be the front Center for what we are really doing here, which backs to the institution that we’re setting up standards and giving different methodologies. That is by based on all this. You know, we, we have a decade of 200 years of experience combined here between this group that’s to consolidate and then improvements in the best practice to improve the project certainty in our industry going forward.

Paul Turner: That’s a great point, yes. Between the expertise on this call, the expertise in the industry, the solutions and processes to follow to successfully complete projects, these are well known and well understood, right? And that’s the role of ICxA: to document this knowledge and expertise and share it with others so they can do the same and have successful projects rather than often the cowboy commissioning we see at the end, where it’s the Wild West, and there’s no controlled or methodical way to finish projects. So I’m glad you brought that point up. Is there a proven method to do this? And we’re documenting that and sharing it with everybody. So let’s get your thoughts. Let’s move on to Wellington. What are your thoughts?

Wellington Colombo: I’m going to follow the same line that Jason. Of course there are some principles that are very important to start early and to measure because operational rate is not just a phase any event in the end of the, the, the project. It’s discipline across functional discipline that should start earlier. And for automations that normally we use people ask it to process things like that. We should have ways to measure and to prove it because it’s very important. It’s not just a matter of to have issue something to have some deliver deliverables, but to prove that with objective evidence. That’s very important. And other point point just to mention that is the governance because many times we are very good in measure or the progress of schedule the the budget and the and other thing. But to measure the maturity of operational Reds, it’s a thing that sometimes lack of attention, OK.

Paul Turner: You mentioned governance, and that’s a key point because by the time you get to the commissioning or testing phase at the end of projects, the success of the project has already been determined months or years in advance, right? Without governance at the beginning of projects, the damage is already done. Commissioning ends up just being the cleanup crew, right? But when you, as you mentioned, implement those standardized governance processes right from the start, you can guide the project to the outcome and make it so much easier and efficient to achieve your outcome with day one operation. So appreciate your comments there for sure. Next, let’s hear from you. Jav, what are your thoughts on early readiness planning?

Jav: Yeah. You know the early readiness is very, very important especially in large projects. And we to have the readiness criteria for every subsystem has to be defined quite early. And by experience we learn that we need to get the operation team involved quite early and we have to have this readiness gates in place. You know, normally we should always have operations involved to come to visit the subsystem at the time we we call for an RFSU. Now we know I guess that’s really for a start up. But with the lesson land, we invite operations to be involved with us much earlier, even before RFC. We have this discipline certificate at that time. We do the walk down, we invite them. So back to what Jason said, we need to have discoverance at quite early stage and that’s where the standards from ICSS comes to help to give this framework that we define the readiness of each subsystem. And also we put that together with the the sequence of a start up and in when it comes to Middle East at the end, you know, there are many criterias that are unknown. For example, even before this war we had this the the sea transfer issue on the Red Sea. I said that delayed things though at the end of the day can even still face some issues with the readiness. But because we have those things when it comes to technical commissioning readiness, you should have everything in place because we cannot afford any more trouble in the process. So that’s.

Paul Turner: Split points, I completely agree. And that’s why ICxA is developing and providing these standards for projects, because it doesn’t need to be a secret on how to do this right. There are processes to follow, and the processes and standards are available for everybody to see as well. All right, so let’s move on to you. James, what are your thoughts?

James Tuller: Perfect. Thanks, Paul. Yeah, this is actually a really good question because this actually touches on an area that in projects that I really enjoy and that’s project architecture. You know, how do you set up the structure, the baseline, the processes to break down the project into manageable stages that everyone will follow and everyone will use the same language because commissioning as a language so that we speak to each other and not pass each other. And it also now also touches on some of the other points that were made on maturity. So we in the, in the current project I sit in, we use the ICxA standards to develop A5 dimension operational readiness model that covers system personnel, processes, asset management and documentation. We use those 5 dimensions to build a series of operational readiness gates where we can take all the different aspects of the project or make sure and make sure that the maturity of these 5 dimensions matches the maturity of the project. So that means by the time you actually get to start up, by the time you’re going to go live, you’ve reduced that that level of uncertainty in the project. Because if you’re coming up to start up and you’ve got 80% certainty and 20% uncertainty, that is a whole ocean of uncertainty and problems and that can arise. So if you can bring it up to that 95% mark, which is quite realistic because you’re always going to have a 5% of unknown uncertainty that you can’t really always plan for, understand what’s going to happen, you still have much better control on the project.

Paul Turner: Agree completely, and I find it fascinating and interesting to see organizations like the ones you’re working with, James, that have taken and embraced the standards, are implementing them at an organizational level and seeing the results of implementing those standards. And you’re, you’re absolutely right that early planning from a systems-based perspective, we often don’t see that on projects, right? We, we start with our traditional WBS that then moves into more of the construction AWP, and it’s an afterthought at the end for a systems-based completions process, right? Whereas you mentioned, if you can set that up and establish your systems-based breakdown structure right at the beginning of projects, and that guides all of the early aspects of projects to align with what’s needed for a systems-based completion, which is the only plausible way to finish projects efficiently, it is with a systems-based approach. So I really appreciate your answer. All right, next up is Andre Goosens. What are your thoughts?

Andre Goosens: Well, most, most remarks were already made, but I got a couple of points in this case, Paul. Thank you. What I normally try to do is when construction runs towards an end, and they want to say OK, we’re done with construction, I’ll see if I can grab one of the construction guys into the commissioning team. On the other hand, what I will also pull into my commissioning team is one or two of the lead operators. And then that makes it quite interesting when you then see the discussion in planning readiness and proving readiness. Next to that, we are proofing, proofing readiness. For me the start-up is part of my commissioning scheme that’s in my system. It even wants to go a little bit further. The 1st 14 days, 24 hours a day trial run for me is still part of commissioning because that’s when the things come out that nobody really thought about. As an example, freezing of level measurements, that sort of stuff. We can think about it, we can work towards it, but certain things happen. Nature will always be there. We cannot escape the laws of physics. So you will find things. Whenever you’re thinking of being ready, think twice, be ready. We’re getting back to Rabbit 1001. It is coming there again.

Paul Turner: Love your analogies. You’ve had some great analogies in this discussion. Andre, your rabbits out of the hat is a perfect analogy. I, I, I really like that one. All right, let’s hear from Andres Mesa. What are your thoughts?

Andres Mesa: Yeah. For me, again is about starting, start early. And by start early, I mean through the implementation of a structured framework to commissioning and Operation Readiness, which is something that should start from the early stages of the project, as discovered before maturity, as more engineering progress, there is a better condition of construction and as well as we get aligned with operations. So that’s what I key to: having this framework fully integrated, also with operations and commissioning, just to ensure all of the operational requirements are there upfront and to work together to ensure milestones, sequences, extra priorities are clearly defined and then integrated into commissioning, construction and engineering. Having this kind of mindset of end in mind, where you start early, then commissioning operations and into the game. So you actually plan with the end in mind approach for your engineering construction, too. Another thing that I think is key is to implement a proper completion management system and implemented across the entire project as a single source of truth. We found that as a key factor to make a price successful during the commissioning and surface.

Paul Turner: Starting with the end in mind is critical, right? Because that is the only way that you have a single source of truth. Without that, you only really find out the truth at the end. But of course, it’s always better to know the truth earlier because then you can actually do something about it. So, definitely appreciate your answer. Excellent. So I see there are some questions in the chat.

Q & A

Question: Ready for start up, initial start up by EPC contract for commissioning, troubleshooting and tuning, really ready to operate, meaning the operator owner is confident enough to be able to take over from the EPC contractor in all respects, including training documents, procedures, etcetera, based on my perspective.

Paul Turner: So that is really the key aspect of being construction complete versus really being ready to accept the assets from a system from a technical perspective, as well as even just as critically from an operational readiness perspective.

David Tain: I can actually add that, Paul, I mean, I said, you know, it’s a that’s a question that he holds, particularly because that emerges as a debate. When I was actually delivering a workshop in Mexico a few months ago, I was delivering a, a presentation about operational awareness. And of course, Latin America, as Wellington can attest, and Andres as well. Latin America is characterized by constrained budgets and, you know, constrained resources and, and multiple, multiple variables that are unique to that business environment. So, so in the middle of the worship, somebody asked me, how did you justify, you know, the, the, the bringing an operational awareness effort to approve you where, you know, we’re already, you know, cast constraint. And the answer came very simple is you know is exactly how AK Sharif mentioned, right? So, between 2 and 4% out of the project board, you know, the construction board, the project budget, I would actually correct that. It represents commissioning and transition to operations.

So that does not represent even the minimum contingency that you have to a project, which is normally between 8 and 10%, in some cases more on certain project 15% percent. So what is happening here, and as I’ve mentioned to that colleague who was asking the question that day, is that you’re trying to save costs in something that is less than your contingency, yet is the most critical function in your project. Because it is the function that is going to avoid you from damaging a $20 million piece of equipment, or you know, cause a reputational issue in an environment because of a spill or even worse, something irrecoverable that could result in the loss of lives, right. So you’re pretty much trying to save costs in something that, in my opinion, is not the right place to look at, yet it is the most critical function that is going to not only sustain your project to bring projects to life, but also to make sure that you deliver the outcome and your organization is not affected by that. So that is a really, really interesting comment. And, and, and more and more I hear, you know, shave cost. Save cost. Yeah. I mean, I’m pro, you know, save cost where it should be, but your shaming cost is something that is not even if anyone contingency to the project, right? So interesting. Interesting comment.

Paul Turner: All right, if there are no other thoughts on that one, we’ve got another question here.

This question comes from experience in the constant battle between project managers who value project completion as construction completion, while commissioning is not given the same weight or merit.

We sometimes see this on projects. But when you look at the traditional project management model, I wouldn’t even say it’s the project manager’s fault. Traditional project management has, for decades, focused on deliverables, scope, schedule, and budget.

So they’re doing their role and following the processes and training they’ve received. The issue is fundamentally that they’re working within a model that does not necessarily produce project outcomes.

That’s why both processes are critically important. We absolutely need expert project managers to deliver the scope of the project from a scope, schedule, and budget perspective.

But then we also need outcome assurance – commissioning, operational readiness, and everything we’ve discussed today – to take the project from the project management world into the operational readiness world.

So when we see tensions between project managers and commissioning teams, I wouldn’t say it’s the project managers’ fault. It’s simply the model they’re working within. Project complexity has outgrown the traditional scope-schedule-budget model.

Any other thoughts or experiences from the group regarding tensions on site?

James Tuller: Yeah, I think a lot of project managers don’t really understand how early commissioning needs to come into the process. I hear quite often, “I don’t want to hear about commissioning, we’re too far away. Come back in six months.”

But by then, the ship has already sailed in terms of problems. So there’s definitely an education and understanding gap. That’s true. In many projects, I’ve always advised that commissioning should start from the detailed engineering phase because that’s where all the system definitions and requirements are established.

It’s important to have commissioning involved early to ensure the outcome is assured.

Project management tends to value construction more because they focus on mechanical completion. They see the physical asset being completed, the structures going up, equipment being installed, and that becomes their definition of project completion.

That’s just how the model works. As Paul said, it’s not necessarily the fault of project management.

Andre Goosens: What James and Paul mentioned ties directly into this. Project managers are doing what they’re supposed to do.

But you need to build trustworthy relationships with them early. That’s the only way to get them on board. Otherwise, you end up standing opposite one another, fighting, and wasting time.

Be there early. Show them you’re willing to support them. Help them during construction. That’s the only way to get everyone into the same boat and move toward a successful operating facility.

Wellington: One important thing is that this is not just a technical issue or a goodwill issue – it’s a governance model issue.

A friend of mine recently asked for help designing a governance model to convince his organization to establish an operational readiness governance structure from the beginning of a mining project.

He’s preparing the governance model before everything starts because afterward it becomes a battle, as mentioned earlier.

So we really need to think about this before projects begin. It’s fundamentally a governance issue.

Andres: As a project team, we can’t put on blinders regarding the impact of handing over a plant that isn’t ready for operation.

Any delays in commissioning and startup directly delay operations, resulting in productivity and production losses that can be extremely costly.

We should consider commissioning as a core project requirement from early on so that we end up with smaller, more reliable risks when operations begin.

Andre Goosens: Construction delays are a major issue. Construction takes longer than expected, but management has already promised the plant will start operating on a specific date.

So commissioning ends up being the last phase in line with the least amount of time to test everything properly.

That’s why, for me, startup and trial runs are part of commissioning. That’s where you uncover the problems, and you need enough time to deal with them.

Paul Turner: Next question from Darren:

Depending on the contract facility type and CSU/O&M philosophy, it can be tricky to do full integrated testing without going into the startup phase, as simulated operations can only go so far. Eventually, you need full operating conditions to uncover design or operational issues.

Absolutely excellent point.

We want to do everything possible to de-risk the process. We test with clean fluids, energized systems, and every available method before startup.

But there are still limits to simulation. If none of that preparation is done, then full operating conditions can expose catastrophic failures very quickly.

As mentioned earlier, there will always be unknown unknowns. That’s why planning and preparation are so important.

Any other thoughts from the group?

Andre Goosens: As I mentioned earlier, for me, trial runs are part of commissioning, even the first few weeks of operations.

Paul Turner: Next question from Richard:

Good coordination, interfacing, integration, and planning between construction and commissioning during mechanical completion and handover is critical for safe and successful commissioning and SIMOPS.

Any comments?

James: I completely agree.

This comes down to project architecture right from the beginning. Handover management protocols need to be established early, not only between construction and commissioning, but also between commissioning and operations.

On brownfield projects, especially, where you’re integrating into existing facilities, operations teams must play a leading role in driving SIMOPS procedures.

David: A key point here is the interface function.

Readiness and interface management are often invisible functions, which is why they get overlooked. They can’t always be tied directly to construction deliverables or visible progress.

But they are critical.

As I mentioned earlier, after many years in this field, I’ve learned that the devil isn’t in the details, it’s hidden in the interfaces.

And problems appear at the most unexpected moments.

Wellington: Again, this is not simply a matter of goodwill. People behave differently under different pressures.

That’s why governance models are so important. Governance should ideally be defined during the design phase because it resolves many future conflicts.

Andres: Integration needs to start very early.

Construction and commissioning must plan together from the start so that CSU sequences are embedded into construction planning.

We also need to understand how SIMOPS will affect both construction and operations.

In my experience, early integration has always been a key factor in successful projects.

Paul Turner: Exactly. Lessons learned have shown us that commissioning should be involved from the detailed engineering phase onward.

Operations teams should also be brought in early, even before RFC walkthroughs.

We invite them to participate in early construction walkdowns so the interface and integration process begins from the earliest stages.

That contributes directly to successful project outcomes.

Next question:

“How do you bridge the gap between unrealistic leadership expectations and schedule pressure when field conditions indicate startup concerns?”

My quick comment is that this usually reflects a lack of governance standards to guide projects toward outcomes.

That’s why ICxA developed the Outcome Assurance Governance Standard, to establish expectations from the beginning of the project lifecycle.

Interested to hear everyone else’s thoughts.

David: Exactly as Wellington mentioned earlier, governance must exist across the entire project lifecycle.

Governance starts before project execution, even before the project concept phase.

And we’ve learned over time that projects are socio-technical systems.

This is not only about technical capability. Projects involve competing agendas, behaviors, intentions, and organizational dynamics.

Governance legitimizes actions and aligns everyone toward the same outcome.

Paul: Next question from Dr. Basil Ali:

“The implementation of Six Sigma processes and analysis for EPC and commissioning projects will improve project excellence and performance.”

I agree that Six Sigma adds tremendous value to construction processes, project delivery, and traditional project management.

However, I haven’t seen Six Sigma address systems integration or a systems-based completion approach.

So I see it more as a traditional project management function rather than a commissioning integration function.

What are everyone else’s thoughts?

David: When we think about Six Sigma, we’re addressing an important part of project compliance and quality.

But we need to distinguish between compliance, completeness, and readiness.

Six Sigma is excellent and has contributed enormously to industry through quality control and lean management.

But it’s complementary, not sufficient on its own.

These systems support the broader readiness ecosystem.

Compliance and completeness are necessary, but they are not enough to ensure readiness.

Paul: I agree. Lean and Six Sigma add tremendous value to project management. But as we discussed earlier, traditional project management alone is not enough. There is still a missing component that transforms scope, schedule, and budget deliverables into integrated operational outcomes.

Paul: Lots of great discussion today. I really appreciate everyone’s involvement, questions, and engagement.

Today’s discussion highlighted the global challenges being experienced across projects and industries worldwide, and how ICxA aims to bridge those gaps and help projects succeed.

Any closing comments from the group before we conclude?

David: I’d personally like to thank the panel.

I’m thrilled by the quality of the discussion and grateful for everyone’s contributions.

Today we explored deeper perspectives and worked through common challenges together.

At the end of the day, we’re all in this together, and it’s only through cross-pollination of knowledge that we’ll improve the execution ecosystem and deliver better outcomes.

I’m really excited for the next roundtables and future discussions.

Thanks, everyone.

Paul: I’d also encourage the audience to connect with us on LinkedIn and consider joining ICxA. Membership can make a major difference in your commissioning career. Once you begin using our standards and guidance documents, you’ll see the difference.

Really appreciate everyone’s comments and involvement today. We wish everyone successful projects. Reach out to ICxA if there’s anything we can do to help.

Have a great day, everyone.

Thank you.

Panelists: Thank you so much. Thanks, guys. See you again.

Paul Turner: Visit icxa.net for more information.

Submit a Comment Cancel reply

Are You Responsible for Project Outcomes?