Integrating Perspectives in Engineering Design – A different approach to design execution

In the process of various stages of an engineering design, from concept to commissioning, as is well known, it is very typical to factor in the views and perspectives of all the stakeholders involved within the ownership of the design. Since various stages of engineering design are typical of the kinds of criteria and parameters that need to have definition and depth of clarity, it is, once again, typical to take inputs only from specific sources and ignore the rest. This invariably, in my experience, leads to a design, that has open-endedness in many respects. This open- endedness can be seen very visibly, when it comes to the final stages, the end users, operation, maintenance. Although the overlooked factors are hardly visible, when having a greater overview, like a conceptual stage, where only the broad operating parameters of the entire facility are being discussed and deliberated; when the same design trickles down the engineering design path into more details, it becomes necessary to factor in the many aspects, that would close the open ends in final stages of development, and bring the design to a maturity that is far more complete.

This insufficiency in the process of engineering design, at various stages, is well known to discipline engineers everywhere. And it isn’t just engineering data per se. It may be aspects which may tie into future developments around a current design. It may be aspects which tie into operability and maintainability. It may be more relevant to overcome altogether, certain inherent problems in the design which were faced in the past, with a more modern technology of the current day that is available out there in the market and yet has never been deliberated and brainstormed with various disciplines.

Oddly enough, even though modern day technologies available, in various fields, be it from Process to Civil, aren’t being implemented, to the degree they can be, not only because of the lack of certain inputs, as discussed above, but also an inherent inertia involved within the typical hierarchy of old corporate structures which tend to rely on archaic means of decision making and implementation of projects. This inertia more often than not, leads to relying on what is empirical, known or has been modeled or implemented in the past. One of the more commonly observable ways this shows up in design is the hesitancy in exploring more innovative ways. To see current trends in a product, an equipment or a package. Ironically, the end users, which are operations and maintenance, for which the facility is in fact being designed, also take on a “Once bitten, twice shy” approach to anything new being proposed. This goes two ways within a corporate structure, all the way from the CEO to the end users.

Finally, it ends up in the basket called “History repeats itself” rather than engineering design, being used, as it should- to promulgate new concepts in design, while it is being designed. It is only engineering design, which is the available phase, within which the research and development of all equipment, process etc has the opportunity to reveal, both the further possibilities and weaknesses inherent in a new technology. When the new concepts of innovation, new processes, new ways of designing, using latest materials, process licenses, automation and control etc are applied within the rigidity of an engineering design, which has to meet a more empirically as well as tested codes and practices, international standards etc, the true test of the potential within a new technology emerges. This inherent latency in engineering design, as well as the corporate ends of the organization, has to be bridged and put together, in order to overcome a situation of never ending inertia that is present today.

And so I propose, a methodology; one in which all stakeholders from the CEO, to senior management right down to end users have to mandatorily participate, with initiative and drive, as a process of evolvement of engineering design.

The Integration of Design- Workshop

The following I have listed, as core concepts, which should be built into an Integration of Design workshop. By no means are these final or complete, as with everything else within engineering field and many more can be evolved along these core concepts. It is of importance here to bear in mind, that a full and mandatory participation in this kind of a workshop by all parties is a given, for only within an environment of a workshop, there is a free reign of ideas, exchange and flourishing of new ones, discarding of older ideas etc. Within the hierarchy of modern day corporate structures, where roles and responsibilities are defined, from one person to the next, akin to the boundaries of responsibilities of a military system, it becomes impossible to carry out this, within an everyday work situation.

A workshop setting is ideal, since one typically leaves one’s comfort zone behind of a daily work schedule. Although one brings one’s own biases and stereotype opinions and an established mindset to the table, being the human that one is, if the objectives are well appreciated by all, it becomes easy to see the inherent purposefulness in the entire exercise, hence of individual as well as corporate benefit.

So the attempt here, is to give a structure to participants in the Integration of Design workshop, at various stages, and what their participation level, might include. Keep in mind; these are merely designated chairs for the workshop and may or may not be positions within the organization itself. However, in organizations where there are already such pre-existing positions, those would be more apt for assuming such roles. The purpose of these workshops is not to be too dogmatic or make it ritualistic in approach to fulfill a routine task or for paperwork, on the contrary, to have it a free-thinking forum, with a loaded power and authority of decision making, which shall be carried into the engineering design, in reality. The voting system is entailed here, with a view, that no single person has the final say, however, the decision is bearing and final with the outcome of votes to the decisions made:

At Conceptual Stage of Design

• ? The Project Sponsor- This chair is a listener to all the discussions. The value addition to this chair is he/she would represent the Senior Management of the Company and derives perspectives from an engineering design point of view. In final decision making, not merely a signatory approval authority or a provisional authority. It is not necessary that this position should have engineering background to participate; on the contrary, it could be otherwise, since the discussions would give the human being, broader perspectives on cost/benefit of all discussions that follow. This chair has a vote.
• ? The Core Technologist – The chair should be able to provide inputs regarding new core technologies available to design a given project/proposal at hand. Obviously, depending on the nature of the project at hand, this maybe a senior process/automation/mechanical equipment specialist(s) in the field, who has to bring to the table, new technologies that may be used in place of old ones in current practice. As the suggestions may be multi-disciplinary, this chair has the role of gathering all inputs and collating them to present for discussion. This chair has no vote.
• ? The Engineering Manager – The chair should be able to measure all discussions with regard to international codes and practices, international standards and should be well versed in all disciplines core set of standards and practices. This is important for the new technologies may not be able to fulfill all requirements of standards and practices, since they are also in continual evolvement. However, the discernment to decide which ones to ignore and which ones to take on board for discussion is the key of this chair. This chair has a vote in

• ? The Core Discipline(s) – This chair (or a group of them) should be able to make key decisions on whether a particular technology is worth trying to implement or not, since they are discipline specialists in their field and should be the most entrusted to make design decisions. Each chair of this group has a vote. Each discipline which has involvement in the project should be part of this group.
• ? The Project Cost – This chair has the responsibility to collate and calculate, for the presentation, all cost/benefit values of the project, with the new technology. The highlight worksheet should be only in the form of cost/benefits. It is not the function of this chair to dictate outcomes of the decision taken; hence this chair has no vote in final decision.
• ? The Facilities Manager – This chair should represent the end user and preferably have a background in both operations as well as maintenance, since this is a conceptual stage of development. A broad understanding of end user concerns with respect to both is crucial to this chair. This chair has a vote.
• At FEED Stage of Design
• ? The Project Sponsor- This chair is a listener to all the discussions. The value addition of this chair is he/she is a representative of the Senior Management of the Company and derives perspectives from an engineering design point of view and adds a management or a board perspective, as needed. This chair should have a vote in final decision making, not merely a signatory approval authority or a provisional authority. It is not necessary that this position should have engineering background to participate; on the contrary, it could be otherwise, since the discussions would give the human being, broader perspectives on cost/benefit of all discussions that follow.
• ? The Engineering Manager – The chair should be able to measure all discussions with regard FEED boundary definitions to all facility equipments, process, packages etc. The role of Engineering Manager in this phase changes from concept stage. However, the discernment at this phase goes to discipline engineers. This chair has no vote at this stage.
• ? The Core Discipline(s) – This chair (or a group of them) should be able to make key decisions on whether a particular technology is worth trying to implement or not, since they are discipline specialists in their field and should be the most entrusted to make design decisions. Each chair of this group has a vote. Each discipline which has involvement in the project should be part of this group.
• ? The Project Cost – This chair has the responsibility to collate and calculate, for the presentation, all FEED Cost Estimate of the project, with the new technology. The highlight worksheet should be only in the form of cost/benefits. Since this stage involves outcomes which affect further engineering, this chair has a vote in this phase.
• ? The Operations representative – This chair should represent the end user operations and preferably have extensive experience operations. The input from this chair should be to contribute operational opinions, pros and cons of the design highlights selected. This chair has a vote.
• ? The Maintenance representative – This chair should represent the end user maintenance and preferably have extensive maintenance experience. The input from this chair should be to contribute maintenance opinions, pros and cons of the design highlights selected. This chair has a vote.

Since after FEED the all broad definitions that are required for the project to go into an EPC phase are fixed and defined, there is not felt the need to have further workshops after the FEED stage. It is hence of the utmost importance, that the workshops be of a high quality and value and an active participation with drive from all participating chairs. These workshops are envisaged only to overcome organizational inertia and bureaucracies where, eventually, most chairs become person-centric or role-fulfilling-centric, and in that process lose all meaning and purpose to the chair held. These workshops end aims are to bridge the gap between what is available and what can be practically achievable within the design and hence realized practically as a project.

In closing, in this age of Internet and Information, where it is obvious that there is no dearth of new ideas, thought or concepts and we already have corporations using CrowdSourcing for innovative solutions, these type of workshops give a meaningful, realizable way of using all these modern tools combining with past experience and expertise already available to get the best design possible.

Arun Ramaswamy

Project Management Consultant- Instrumentation & Control Engineer Email: [email protected]