Blog Posts

Data Integration – Why Dictionaries…..?

8/19/2017

Most companies of more than medium size that does any engineering soon finds itself in a similar situation to the figure below.
The names of the applications might be different, but the underlying problem remains the same: Engineering data is created by different best of bread design tools used by different engineering disciplines, and the data must at some point in time be consolidated across disciplines and communicated to another discipline. This other discipline being procurement, project execution, manufacturing and/or supply chain.

This article is a continuation of the thoughts discussed in an earlier post called integration strategies, if the full background is wanted.

As the first figure indicates, this has often ended up in a lot of application specific point to point integrations. For the last 15 years, more or less, so called Enterprise Service Buses have been available to organizations, enterprise and software architects. The Enterprise Service Bus, often referred to as ESB is a common framework for integration allowing different applications to subscribe to published data from other applications and thereby creating a standardized “information highway” between different company domains and their software of choice.

By implementing such an Enterprise Service Bus, the situation in the company would look somewhat like the figure above. Now from an enterprise architecture point of view this looks fine, but what I often see in organizations I work with is more depressing. Let’s dive in and see what often goes on behind the scene.

Modern ESB’s have graphical user interfaces that can interpret the publishing applications data format, usually by means of xml or rather the xsd. The same is true for the subscribing applications.
This makes it easy to create integrations by simply dragging and dropping data sources from one to the other. Of course, often, one will have to combine some attributes from one application into one specific attribute in another application, but this is also usually supported.

So far everything is just fine, and integration projects have become a lot easier than before. BUT, and there is a big but. What happens when you have multiple applications integrated?

The problems of point to point integrations have effectively been re-created inside the Enterprise Service Bus, because if I change the name of an attribute in a publishing application’s connector, all the subscribing application’s connectors must be changed as well.
How can this be avoided? Well several ESB’s support the use of so called dictionaries, and the chances are that the Enterprise Service Bus ironically is already using one in the background.

So, what is a dictionary in this context?
Think of it as a Rosetta stone. Well, what is a Rosetta stone you might ask. The find of the Rosetta stone was the breakthrough in understanding Egyptian hieroglyphs. The stone contained a decree with the same text in hieroglyphs, Demotic script and ancient Greek allowing us to decipher Egyptian hieroglyphs.
Imagine the frustration before this happened. A vast repository of information carved in stone all over the magnificent finds from an earlier civilization…. And nobody could make sense of it….. Sounds vaguely familiar in another context.

Back to our more modern integration issues.

If a dictionary or Rosetta stone is placed in the middle, serving as an interpretation layer, it won’t matter if the name of some of the attributes in one of the publishing applications changes. None of the other applications connectors will be affected, since it is only the mapping to the dictionary that must be changed which is the responsibility of the publishing application.

If such a dictionary is based on an industry standard, it will also have some very beneficial side effects.
Why?
Because if your internal company’s integration dictionary is standards based, then the effort of generating information sent to clients and suppliers, traditionally referred to as transmittals or submittals, will be very easy indeed.

If we expand our line of thought to interpretation of data from operational systems (harvesting data from physical equipment in the field). Commonly referred to as IoT, or acquisition of data through SCADA systems, then the opportunities becomes even greater.

In this case it really is possible to kill two birds with one stone, and thereby creating a competitive advantage!

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by Bartkowski and purchased at dreamstime.com

0 Comments

Who owns what data when…..?

7/7/2017

0 Comments

A vital questions when looking at cross departmental process optimization and integration is in my view: who owns what data when in the overall process?

Usually this question will spark up quite a discussion between the process owners, company departments, data owners and the different enterprise architects. The main reason for this is that depending on where the stakeholders have their main investment, they tend to look at “their” part of the process as the most important and the “master” for their data.

Just think about sales with their product configurators, engineering with CAD/PLM, supply chain, manufacturing & logistics with ERP and MES. Further along the lifecycle you encounter operations and service with EAM, Enterprise Asset Management, systems sometimes including MRO, Maintenance Repair and Operations/Overhaul. The last part being for products in operational use. Operations and service is really on the move right now due to the ability to receive valuable feedback from all products used in the field (commonly referred to as Internet of Things) even for consumer products, but hold your horses on the last one just for a little while.

The different departments and process owners will typically have claimed ownership of their particular parts of the process, making it look something like this:

This would typically be a traditional linear product engineering, manufacturing and distribution process. Each department has also selected IT tools that suit their particular needs in the process.
This in turn leads to information handovers both between company departments and IT tools, and due to the complexity of IT system integration, usually, as little as possible of data is handed from one system to the next.

So far it has been quite straight forward to answer “who owns what data”, especially for the data that is actually created in the departments own IT system, however, the tricky one is the when in “ who owns what data when”, because the when implies that ownership of certain data is transferred from one department and/or IT system to the next one in the process. In a traditional linear one, such information would be “hurled over the wall” like this:

Now, since as little information as possible flowed from one department / IT system to the next, each department would make it work as best as they could, and create or re-create information in their own system for everything that did not come directly through integration.
Only in cases where there were really big problems with lacking or clearly faulty data, an initiative would be launched to look at the process and any system integrations that would be affected.

The end result being that the accumulated information throughout the process that can be associated with the end product, that is to say the physical product sold to the consumer, is only a fraction of the actual sum of information generated in the different department’s processes and systems.

Now what happens when operations & services get more and more detailed information from each individual product in the field, and starts feeding that information back to the various departments and systems in the process?

The process will cease to be a linear one, it becomes circular with constant feedback of analyzed information flowing back to the different departments and IT systems.

Well what’s the problem you might ask.

The first thing that becomes clear is that each department with their systems does not have enough information to make effective use of all the information coming from operations, because they each have a quite limited set of data concerning mainly their discipline.

Secondly, the feedback loop is potentially constant or near real-time which will open up for completely new service offerings, however, the current process and infrastructure going from design through engineering and manufacturing was never built to tackle this kind of speed and agility.

Ironically, from a Product Lifecycle Management perspective, we’ve been talking about breaking down information and departmental silos in companies to utilize the L in PLM for as long as I can remember, however the way it looks now, it is probably going to be operations and the enablement of Internet Of Things and Big Data analytics that will force companies to go from strictly linear to circular processes.

And when you ultimately do, please always ask yourself “who should own what data when”, because ownership of data is not synonymous with the creation of data. Ownership is transferred along the process and accumulates to a full data set of the physically manufactured product until it is handed back again as a result of fault in the product or possible optimization opportunities for the product.

– And it will happen faster and faster

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by Bacho12345 and purchased at dreamstime.com

0 Comments

Digitalization - sure, but on what foundation?

4/7/2017

5 Comments

The last couple of years I’ve been working with some companies on digitalization projects and strategies. Digitalization is of course very attractive in a number of industries:

Equipment manufacturers, where digitalization can be merged with Internet Of Things to create completely new service offerings and relationships with the customers
Capital projects EPC’s and operators, where a digital representation of the delivery can be handed over as a “digital twin” to the operator , and where the operator can use it and hook it up to EAM or MRO solutions to monitor the physical asset real-time in a virtual world. The real value for the operator here is increased up-time and lower operational costs, whereas EPC’s can offer new kinds of services and in addition mitigate project risks better.
Construction industry, where the use of VDC (Virtual Design & Construction) technology can be extended to help the facility owner minimize operational costs and optimize comfort for tenants by connecting all kinds of sensors in a modern building and adjust accordingly.

But hang on a second: If we look at the definition of digitalization, at least the way Gartner views it

“Digitalization is the use of digital technologies to change a business model and provide new revenue and value-producing opportunities; it is the process of moving to a digital business.” (Source: Gartner)

…The process of moving to a digital business….

The digitalization strategies of most of the companies I’ve been working with focuses on the creation of new services and revenue possibilities on the service side of the lifecycle of a product or facility, so AFTER the product has been delivered, or the plant is in operation.
There is nothing wrong with that, but if the process from design through engineering and manufacturing is not fully digitalised (by that I do not mean documents in digital format, but data as information structures linked together) then it becomes very difficult to capitalize on the promises of the digitalization strategy.

Consider 2 examples

Figure 1.

Figure 1 describes a scenario where design and engineering tools work more or less independently and where the result is consolidated in documents or excel before communicated to ERP. This is the extreme scenario to illustrate the point, and most companies have some sort of PDM/PLM or Engineering Register to perform at least partial consolidation of data before sending to ERP. However I often find some design or engineering tools operating as “islands” outside the consolidation layer.

So if we switch viewpoint to the new digital service offering promoted to end customers. What happens when a sensor is reporting back a fault in the delivered product? The service organization must know exactly what has been delivered, where the nearest spare parts are, how the product is calibrated etc. to quickly fix the problem with a minimum use of resources in order to make a profit and to exceed customer expectation to gain a good reputation.

How likely is that to happen with the setup in figure 1?

Figure 2.

The setup in figure 2 describes a situation where design and engineering information is consolidated together with information regarding the actually delivered physical products. This approach does not necessarily dictate that the information is only available in one and only one software platform, however the essence is that the data must be structured and consolidated.

Again let’s switch viewpoint to the new digital service offering promoted to end customers. What happens when a sensor is reporting back a fault in the delivered product?
When data is available as structured and linked data it is instantly available to the service organization, and appropriate measures can be taken while informing the customer with accurate data.

My clear recommendation is that if you are embarking on a digitalization journey to enhance your service offering and offer new service models, then make sure you have a solid digital foundation to build those offerings on. Because if you don’t it will be very difficult to achieve the margins you are dreaming of.

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by kurhan and purchased at dreamstime.com

5 Comments

Plant Information Management – Operations and Maintenance

1/29/2017

0 Comments

This post is a continuation of the posts in the Plant Information Management series of:
“Plant Information Management - Installation and Commissioning”
“Handover to logistics and supply chain in capital projects”
“Plant Engineering meets Product Engineering in capital projects”
“Plant Information Management - What to manage?”

During operations and maintenance, the two main structures of information needed in order to operate the plant in a safe and reliable manner is the functional or tag structure and the physically installed structure.
The functional tag structure is a multidiscipline consolidated view of all design requirements and criteria, whereas the physically installed structure is a representation of what was actually installed and commissioned together with associated data. It is important to note that the physically installed structure evolves over time during operations and maintenance, so it is vital to make baselines of both structures together to obtain “As-Installed” and “As-Commissioned” documentation

Figure 1.

Let’s zoom in on some of the typical use cases of the two structures.

Figure 2.

The requirements in the blue tag structure are fulfilled by the physical installation, the yellow structures. In a previous post I promised to get back to why they are represented as separate objects. The reason for this is that during operations one would often like to replace a physical individual on site with another physical individual. This new physical individual still has to fulfill the tag requirements, as the tag requirements (system design) have not changed. In addition we need full traceability of not only what is currently installed, but also what used to be installed at that functional location (see figure 3).

Figure 3.

Here we have replaced the vacuum pump during operations with another vacuum pump from another vendor. The new vacuum pump must comply with the same functional requirements as the old one even if they might have different product designs.
This is a very common use case where a product manufacturing company comes up with a new design a few years later. The product might be a lot cheaper and still fulfills the requirements, so if the operator of the plant has 500 instances of such products in the facility, it makes perfect sense to replace them when the old product nears end of life or have extensive maintenance programs.

Another very important reason to keep the tag requirements and physically installed as separate objects is if….or rather when the operator wishes to execute a modification or extension project to the plant.
In such cases one must still manage and record the day to day operation of the plant (work requests and work orders performed on physical equipment in the plant) while at the same time performing a plant design and execution project. This entails Design, Engineering, Procurement, Construction and Commissioning all over again.

Figure 4.

The figure shows, that when the blue functional tag structure is kept separate from the yellow physically installed structure we can still operate the current plant on a day to day basis, and at the same time perform new design on the revised system (Revision B).
This allows us to execute all the processes right up until commissioning on the new revision, and when successfully commissioned, the revision B becomes operational.

This all sounds very good in theory, but in practice it is a bit more challenging, as there in the meantime might have been made change orders that effected the design of the previous revision as a result of operations. This is one of the use cases where structured or linked data instead of a document centric approach really pays off, because such a change order would immediately indicate that it would affect the new design, and thus, appropriate measures can be taken at an early stage instead of nasty surprises popping up during installation and commissioning of the new system.

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by nightman1965 and purchased at dreamstime.com

0 Comments

Plant Information Management - Installation and Commissioning

1/27/2017

0 Comments

I realize that the last post “Handover to logistics and supply chain in capital projects” went quite a lot further in the information lifecycle than the headline suggested, so here is a brief recap on how structured and linked data can support processes during construction/installation and commissioning.

This post is a continuation of the posts in the Plant Information Management series of:
“Handover to logistics and supply chain in capital projects”
“Plant Engineering meets Product Engineering in capital projects”
“Plant Information Management - What to manage?”

Let’s jump in and follow the journey of the manufactured physical products as they move into installation and commissioning phases.

Figure 1.
Provided that the information from the different structures and their context in relation to each other is kept, it is possible to trace perfectly what physical items should be installed where, corresponding to the tag requirements in the project (note: I’ve removed the connections from tag to EBOM in this figure for clarity).

We are now able to connect the information from tag: =AB.ACC01.IS01.VS04.EP03, the one in the safety classed area to the physical item with serial number S/N: AL11234-12-15 that contains the documentation proving that it is fit for purpose in a safety classed area.
As the other two tags are not in a safety classed area, and have no special requirements, any of the two physical pumps can be used to fulfill the tag requirements, however we still want full traceability for commissioning, operations & maintenance.

Figure 2.
Since we now have a connection between the tag requirements and the physically installed individuals, we can commence with various commissioning tests and verify that what we actually installed works as intended in relation to what we designed (the plant system), and furthermore we can associate certificates, commissioning documentation and processes to the physical individuals.

The reason for this split between tag object and physical item object I’d like to come back to in a future post regarding operations and maintenance.

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by Satori13 and purchased at dreamstime.com

0 Comments

Handover to logistics and supply chain in capital projects

12/12/2016

1 Comment

This post is a continuation of the post “Plant Engineering meets Product Engineering in capital projects” and “Plant Information Management - What to manage?”

As the last post dwelled on how EPC’s and product companies are trying to promote re-use in very Engineer To Order (ETO) intensive projects, we will focus on the handover to supply chain and logistics in this post.

The relationship between the tag containing the project specific requirements, and the article or part containing the generic product design constitutes a project specific demand that supply chain and logistics should know about. If both the tag and the connected part is released, a “signal” is sent with information regarding both the tag’s requirements and the part’s requirements.
An exception to this rule is typically Long Lead Items (LLI). I’ve seen this handled via a special process that allows transfer of the information to supply chain and logistics even if the specific tag has not been released.

Figure 1.
As the project specific information regarding all three tags and the intended use of product design is sent to logistics and supply chain it is possible to distinguish what tags need special attention and what tags can be ordered “off the shelf”.

Let’s say that tag: =AB.ACC01.IS01.VS04.EP03 is in a safety classed area and the other two are not. Information in the purchase order for the safety classed tag must then contain information to the manufacturer that documentation regarding the manufacturing process must follow the produced individual that will be used to implement this specific tag, whereas the other two deliveries can have standard documentation.

Figure 2.
Figure 2 depicts that all three manufactured products or physical items with serial numbers come from the same Engineering Bill Of Material, but that the individual with serial number S/N: AL11234-12-15 has some extra information attached.
This is because since it is to be used in a safety classed environment, proof must be produced from the manufacturer’s side that the product fulfills the safety class requirements given on the tag. This could for instance be X-Ray documentation that all welds are up to spec or that the alloy used has sufficient quality.
As you can see, If the information is kept as information structures with relationships between the different data sets detailing what context the different information is used in, it becomes possible to trace and manage it all in project specific processes.
There are some other very important information structures that I mentioned in the post “Plant Information Management - What to manage?” like the Sales BOM (similar to manufacturing industries Manufacturing BOM), the Supply BOM and warehouse management, however I would like to cover those in more detail later in later posts.

For now let’s follow the journey of the manufactured products as they move into installation and commissioning.

Figure 3.
Provided that the information from the different structures and their context in relation to each other is kept, it is possible to trace perfectly what physical items should be installed where, corresponding to the tag requirements in the project (note: I’ve removed the connections from tag to EBOM in this figure for clarity).

We are now able to connect the information from tag: =AB.ACC01.IS01.VS04.EP03, the one in the safety classed area, to the physical item with serial number S/N: AL11234-12-15 that contains the documentation proving that it is fit for purpose in a safety classed area.
As the other two tags are not in a safety classed area, and have no special requirements, any of the two physical pumps can be used to fulfill the tag requirements, however we still want full traceability for commissioning, operations & maintenance.

Figure 4
Since we now have a connection between the tag requirements and the physically installed individuals, we can commence with various commissioning tests and verify that what we actually installed works as intended in relation to what we designed (the plant system), and furthermore we can associate certificates and commissioning documentation to the physical individuals.
The reason for this split between tag object and physical item object I’d like to come back to in a future post regarding operations and maintenance.

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by Nostal6ie and purchased at dreamstime.com

1 Comment

Plant Engineering meets Product Engineering in capital projects

9/30/2016

0 Comments

This post is a follow up of “Plant Information Management - What to manage?”.

It focuses on the needed collaboration between Plant Engineering (highly project intensive) and Product Engineering which ideally should be “off the shelf” or at least Configure To Order (CTO), but in reality is more often than not, Engineer To Order (ETO) or one-offs.

More and more EPC’s (Engineering Procurement Construction companies), and product companies exposed to project intensive industries are focusing hard on ways to re-use product designs from one project to the next or even internally in the same project through various forms of configuration and clever use of master data, see “Engineering Master Data - Why is it different?”.

However, we will never get away from the fact that the product delivery in a capital project will always have to fulfill specific requirements from Plant Engineering, and especially in safety classed areas of the plant.
If you look at the blue object structure, it represents a consolidated view of multi-discipline plant engineering. The system might consist of several pumps, heat exchangers, sensors, instrumentation and pipes, but we are going to focus on a specific tag and it’s requirements, namely one of the pumps in the system.

At one point in the plant engineering process the design is deemed fit for project procurement to start investigating product designs that might fulfill the requirements stated in the plant system design.
If the plant design is made by an EPC that does not own any product companies, the representing product is typically a single article or part with associated preferred vendors/manufacturers who might be able to produce such a product or have it in stock. If the EPC does own product companies, the representing product might be a full product design. In other words a full Engineering Bill Of Material (EBOM) of the product.

This is where it becomes very interesting indeed because the product design (EBOM) is generic in nature. It represents a blueprint or mold if you will, used to produce many physical products or instances of the product design. The physical products typically have serial numbers, and you are able to touch them. However, due to requirements from the Owner/Operator, the EPC will very often dictate both project and tag specific documentation from the product company supplying to the project, which in turn often leads to replication of the product designs X number of times to achieve compliance with the documentation requirements in the project (Documentation For Installation and Operations).

So, even if it is exactly the same product design it ends up being copied each time there is a project specific delivery. This often happens even if let’s say 40 pumps are being supplied by the same vendor to the same project, as responses to the requirements on 40 different tags in the plant design……
Needless to say it becomes a lot of Engineering Bill Of Materials in order to comply with documentation requirements in capital projects. Even worse, for the product companies it becomes virtually impossible to determine exactly what they have delivered each time, since it is different Engineering Bills Of Materials all the time, yet 97% of the information might be the same. The standardized product has now become an Engineer To Order product.
So how is it possible to avoid this monstrous duplication of work?
More and more companies are looking into ways to make use of data structures used in different contexts. The contexts might be different deliveries to the same project or across multiple projects, but if one is able to identify and separate the generic information from what information that needs to be project specific it is also possible to facilitate re-use.

The image above shows how a generic product design (EBOM) is able to fulfill three different project specific tags or functional locations in a plant. Naturally three physical instances or serial numbers must then be manufactured based on the generic product design, but since we have the link or relationship between the project specific requirements (the tags) and the generic (the EBOM), one can generate project specific data and documentation without making changes to the generic representation of the product (the EBOM).
This approach even enables the product company to identify and manufacture one of the pumps which happens to be in a safety classed area in the plant design according to regulatory requirements without having to make changes or duplicate the product design, however more on that next time.

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by Nostal6ie and purchased at dreamstime.com

0 Comments

PLM - the KPI's, the ROI and the simple

8/20/2016

0 Comments

It is often hard to measure since PLM affects so many different and interchanging aspects of an engineering and manufacturing company.

However I would like to share a story about a multi-billion dollar company who was about to embark on a global PLM implementation journey.

They were required to come up with a series of KPI’s and to report the progress to top management. The PLM project spent considerable effort in doing so.
One of the 10 KPI’s they identified was their engineering change process. They measured time spent from the engineering change was requested to it was released, and furthermore the impact it had on the project execution schedules in their customer projects (The company is heavily engaged in project intensive industries).

All measurements were done on a monthly basis before and after the PLM platform went live.

Before the introduction of the platform it was largely a manual process where the project and product managers would gather and have so called “sign fests” where engineering changes was simply signed without much review since the magnitude of changes was staggering, and so they had to rely on the judgement of their junior managers. This sounds like a rather risky approach, but the fact was that the cost of not approving was far greater than just approving. Needless to say this manual process still took quite some time since the junior managers spent a lot of time evaluating before submitting to the “sign fest”.

After the introduction of the PLM platform, they continued measuring. Top management was still eager to get reports on all the KPI’s, but then they started to notice something. The engineering change process showed a relatively modest drop in time spent globally in the beginning, but the calculation of impact on time and money saved in the projects showed impressive results. As the organization got more and more familiar with the new engineering change process, the time spent from change request to release fell rapidly, and the result in ongoing customer projects was even greater.

After less than a year they concluded that the improvements on throughput of Engineering Changes and time spent on them alone paid for the entire project.

In my view, yes there are a lot of important benefits like “increased collaboration” using a PLM platform that are hard to measure, but a lot of times it makes even more sense to measure smaller but more identifiable benefits and then trace the impact they have further down the lifecycle of the product.

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by Andrewgenn and purchased at dreamstime.com

0 Comments

Linking vision with strategy and implementation, but prepare for disruption

6/24/2016

2 Comments

Over the years I’ve seen the importance of defining a vision for where one would like to get.

Such a vision should serve as a guiding star.
This is true for full corporate visions as well as for smaller areas of the enterprise.

It could be for our product lifecycle management and the internet of things, how we see ourselves benefitting from big data, or harnessing virtual design and construction.

The strategy is our plan for how we intend to get to the promised land of our vision. It should be detailed enough to make sense of what kind of steps we need to take to reach our vision, but beware:

Don’t make it too detailed, the first casualty of any battle is the battle plan.
Prepare, but allow for adjustments as maturity and experience grows.

An important part of the strategy work is to acid test the vision itself. Does it make sense, will it benefit us as a company and if so, HOW.

During the strategy work, all stakeholders should be consulted. And yes both internal and external stakeholders. The greatest vision in the world with a good strategy and top notch internal implementation won’t help much if you have external dependencies that cannot deliver what you need according to your new way of working…..
Business processes will simply come grinding to a halt.

The implementation rarely takes the same path as the strategy intended it to do. There are usually many reasons for this.
My best advice regarding implementation is to take it one step at a time and evaluate each step. Try to deliver some real business value in each step, and align the result towards vision and strategy. Such an approach will give you the possibility to respond to changing business needs as well as external threats.

But as we come closer to the promised land of our vision, we can simply sense the feel of it and can almost touch it…. Then, disruption happens........

Such a disruption might present itself in the form of a merger and acquisition where vision, strategy and also implementation must be re-evaluated.
The “new” company might have entered another industry where strategy and processes need to be different and old technical solutions won’t fit.

Today everybody seems to be talking about disruptive technology and or disruptive companies. Most companies acknowledge that there is a real risk that it will happen, but the problem is, since most disruptive companies haven’t even been formed yet, it is difficult to identify where the attack will come from and in what form.

This leads back to vision, strategy and implementation. Vision and strategy can be changed quickly, but unless the implementation is flexible enough and able to respond to changing needs, the company will be unable to respond quick enough to meet the disruption.

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by Skypixel and purchased at dreamstime.com

2 Comments

Managing Documentation For Installation and Operations

5/1/2016

0 Comments

In one of my previous articles “Plant Information Management - What to manage?”
I wrote about different information structures needed in a plant project from early design through commissioning and operations.

The article left some questions hanging. One of them was: how can all this information be consolidated, managed and distributed to the various stakeholders in a plant project at the right time and with the right quality?

Traditionally this has been called LCI or LifeCycle Information, at least in Norwegian oil & gas industry, DFI/DFO internationally or Documentation For Installation / Documentation For Operations. In short it is the operator’s requirements and needs for information from early design through engineering, procurement, construction and up to and including commissioning. The requirements are safety, regulatory and also requirements for information the operator finds important in order to control, monitor and guide progress of the project executed by the EPC.

As the figure describes, the operator drives expectation of deliveries in terms of standardization, safety & regulatory and expected documentation needed to operate and maintain the plant after commissioning. All stakeholders in the value chain must abide to these requirements, and it is the EPC who usually has the task of coordinating and consolidating this mountain of information. A successful commissioning includes that the operator confirms that it has received all documentation and information required to operate the plant in a safe and regulatory compliant manner. At this point the EPC is excused from the project.

In theory, the documentation handover would look like the figure above, however operators experience has told them that this seldom works well. Therefore a much more frequent information exchange is required between EPC and operator leading up towards commissioning. The main reason for this is that it enables the operator to monitor, check and verify the progress in the project. It also makes for a more gradual build-up and maturing of documentation in the project. For the EPC it means frantic activity to secure all required documentation from its own engineering disciplines, and all external companies in the projects value chain (see the pyramid in figure 1.) at each milestone.

Traditionally a whole host of LCI Coordinators has been needed both on the EPC side, and on the operator side to make sure that all documentation is present, and if not, to make sure it is created…. The very “best” LCI coordinators on the EPC side manage to produce the information without “bothering” engineering too much. It has largely been a document centric process separated from the plant & product engineering process.

As long as EPC’s are only active in one country, this approach is manageable for them, however once they turn global, they find themselves having to deal with many different safety standards, regulatory standards and last but not least varying requirements and formats from different operators. Even product companies and module suppliers delivering to projects in different parts of the world experience the same thing.

In later years I’ve experienced more and more interest in leaving the document centric approach for a more data centric approach. This means that data is created and consolidated from various disciplines in data structures as described in the article “Plant Information Management - What to manage?”, and that the LCI process becomes an integral part of the engineering, procurement, construction and commissioning processes instead of being a largely separated one.

Of course there are varying strategies among companies when it comes to how much to manage, and how to hand it over.

Some create data structures in PLM like platforms, consolidates them, manage changes and transfer data to other stakeholders in the projects via generated transmittals. This is more similar to the document centric approach only more automated.
Some companies target re-use from project to project in addition to the aspects mentioned above by creating data structures in catalogs that can be selected in other projects as well. The selected data structure is then replicated in a project specific context and gets auto generated project specific information like tags and documentation.
Others again removes or reduces the need for transmittals and document handovers by letting the project stakeholders directly into their platform to work and deliver information there instead of handing over documents.
One approach was to not hand over documents at all, but simply give the operator access to the platform, link the information from the data structures as deliverables to the milestones the operator required, and then handing over the entire platform to the operator as Documentation For Operations after successful commissioning.

Bjorn Fidjeland

The header image used in this post is by Norbert Buchholz and purchased at dreamstime.com

0 Comments

<<Previous

Forward>>

Data Integration – Why Dictionaries…..?

Who owns what data when…..?

Digitalization - sure, but on what foundation?

Plant Information Management – Operations and Maintenance

Plant Information Management - Installation and Commissioning

Handover to logistics and supply chain in capital projects

Plant Engineering meets Product Engineering in capital projects

PLM - the KPI's, the ROI and the simple

Linking vision with strategy and implementation, but prepare for disruption

Managing Documentation For Installation and Operations

plmPartner

Categories