“We Need to Get Going On This Project”: Issues with Starting Research Projects too Early
Richard Palluzi
Pilot Plant and Laboratory Engineering, Safety, and Design Consultant at Richard P Palluzi LLC
Someone, somewhere, at some time must have been told that there was no rush in getting a research project whether a pilot plant or laboratory renovation or construction complete. Sadly, I was never one of these lucky individuals. It always seems that almost any research project is under significant pressure to finish sooner than later. And this invariably leads to a desire to get started on doing something as soon as possible to make some progress.
On many projects, there is a strong tendency to start doing something – anything - before the design work is complete. This approach, in my opinion and experience, is strongly counterproductive but also unfortunately counterintuitive. Starting any work, in most circumstances, before the design work is essentially complete only ensures that you will incur extra costs, needless rework, potential safety issues, and not finish any sooner if not later. Pretty strong words. But backed up by my experience.
Certainly, there are some areas that cry out to get started early. Demolishing an older unit to make room for the new one, removing old casework or walls to allow an as yet undesigned new open plan laboratory, removing an older building to make way for a new laboratory all probably make some sense to get started as soon as possible. What these have in common is the fact that the proposed work usually has little or no influence on the new design. Usually being the key word. If the old unit had some utilities that could have been reused, it might have been prudent to wait to determine their usefulness. If the older laboratory had a wall that worked in the new configuration it would have been nice to save it. But, usually these type of advance work are fairly safe early steps.
Beyond these areas, starting before the final design assumes your crystal ball will know what the final design requires. Many times, you assume that certain skid or frame sizes will work so why not get started on building them. Only when the design progresses do you realize you need a stronger frame, a higher skid, or a wider pallet leading to rework or trying to make what was already completed work with needless compromises. Other times you know what utilities will probably be required so why not start running them into the area. Unfortunately, you miss one, or layout the routing in a logical manner that nevertheless interferes with the final equipment layout. Often you feel you know what longer lead time equipment is required so why not get them on order now. Yet the final design moves the compressor outside and it was not ordered weatherproof, requires the expensive metering pump to operate at the low end of its range where it is much less accurate, or the vessel to have a slightly higher MAWP for a solid margin between the relief device setting and the final operating pressure. For every time these advance actions have proven prudent and successful, my experience has been they are two or three times more likely to create unexpected and unrecognized problems, at least unrecognized in advance. The frames have supports in the way that have to be moved. The utilities end up blocking a higher component or making a specific optimum layout difficult. The equipment is recognized to be too big, too small, or not rated for a high or low enough temperature or pressure, or other issues not readily apparent until the entire design is complete.
My argument, proved on numerous projects, is that waiting until the design is essentially complete before starting this work almost always ensures that you avoid all or at least most of these problems. Does it take some added time? Yes, but the same amount of time is often lost in correcting the problems the earlier steps created. More importantly, it is almost always less expensive and less risky to work some overtime, add some more construction personnel, or work to schedule more concurrent activities during construction to make up any lost time. Since you have finished the design and know exactly what you need to do there is a much lower risk that you will have to rework something or that you will have created needless problems down the road.
What type of problems often arise?
Since the final design is not complete, the layout often is very preliminary or even not started. As a result, clearances, heights, working access and many other issues are not identified. This often leads to utilities, lights, sprinklers, trenches, and numerous other facility items being installed in the wrong or at least less optimum place. Doors, ramps, entrances, and exits are often placed in a logical location (centered in a wall or as close to a wall as possible) yet the final layout suggests that had they been placed differently the room would layout much easier, space utilization would be better, and emergency egress more straightforward. Deciding to run the utilities at the height they enter the room seems very reasonable until one realizes the extra large ductwork does not fit or the taller piece of equipment now has minimal clearance for maintenance and operations.
Installing drains required to address process or utility needs in advance can result in having to make ramps over piping crossing aisles, trying to snake piping under skids and pallets, or even dig up the floor to relocate or provide additional drains or trenches when the final design is complete. The need to bridge an aisle, pipe under a large duct, go around a column, and similar problems often result in time consuming and expensive solutions to problems that could have been avoided or at least minimized by having the full design before starting. Vents that turn out to be larger than expected or fail to be recognized earlier often must run longer distances which costs more and often increases their size or the size of the relief device. Roof penetrations become more difficult and costly if the only available location is difficult to access or blocked by structural supports, ductwork, or utility piping or wiring.
The realization that a skid or frame needs to be a different size after the layout based on the final design is endemic. Suddenly recognizing that the skid columns or bracing if rotated or attached in slightly different locations would greatly reduce construction time and allow easier operation is common. Realizing that the lifting or mounting lugs on a pre-ordered vessel are in the way of other components creates needless problems.
Waiting for the design to be completed helps to avoid these and many other problems. Too often haste does indeed make waste.
For further information on accelerating research schedules you may want to read these articles.
· “We Need It Faster”: Issues with Accelerated Pilot Plant Schedules at https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/we-need-faster-issues-accelerated-pilot-plant-richard-palluzi/
· Pilot Plant Design Reviews: An Important Tool for Minimizing Start Up Costs and Improving Operability at https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/pilot-plant-design-reviews-important-tool-minimizing-start-palluzi/
· Lump Sum or Cost Plus: Which Makes Sense for Pilot Plants and Research Support? at https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/lump-sum-cost-plus-which-makes-sense-pilot-plants-research-palluzi/
· Contracting Pilot Plants and Research Support: The Good, the Bad, And the Ugly at https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/contracting-pilot-plants-research-support-good-bad-ugly-palluzi/
· Reducing Pilot Plant and Laboratory Unit Construction Costs and Schedules at https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/reducing-pilot-plant-laboratory-unit-construction-costs-palluzi/
· Modular Pilot Plant Construction at https://www.dhirubhai.net/pulse/modular-pilot-plant-construction-richard-palluzi/
Director of Project Engineering at Fortera
4 年I agree with many of the comments mentioned here, but here is an alternative take: A well laid out plan will always avoid waste, but at what cost to the project timeline and resources. There is always a fine line between showing progress and having a well laid out plan. What if the plan is just good enough. Being around pilot plants most my career, i would argue that getting those first data points are critical in validating or redirecting your technology path. Ultimately, these are pilot plants are meant to be taken apart and reconfigured to make the technology work, so inevitably something is going to be incorrectly sized, placed, or needed to be reworked. This is the process of elaborate progression of the technology, which I feel should be embraced. Not only does the elaborate progression drive technology growth but likely personal and professional career growth.
I really enjoy reading your articles Richard. I'd love to put you in touch with a few purchasing agents I know who are sometimes disappointed by the time required for detailed engineering completion. The leveraging effect of avoiding mistakes at such an early stage is just huge.
Sr. Research Technician at Lyondellbasell
4 年Things are often rushed because the manager who wants it done has no idea how long things take. They also have an “all you have to do is...” mindset. One of my mottoes is, “When someone says, “all you have to do is...”, then you know that you are in trouble!”
Chemical process development expert. Antidote to marketing #hopium . Tireless advocate for a fossil fuel-free future.
4 年Another good article Richard Palluzi- In the the minds of the people committing the money, the instant the money to build it is committed, the pilot plant is already late! Accepting that as a reality, but not being bullied into rushing and thereby rendering the project compromised in its function or safety, is key to getting projects done successfully.
Vice President Sales & Marketing at Zeton Inc.
4 年Great article! Having an experienced pilot plant engineer assigned to the team at the outset of a research project is integral to its success, and avoiding many of the issues you have highlighted.