Is our industry addressing the problems facing it today? We idealize infinitesimally small event rates for highly catastrophic hazards, yet are we any safer? Have we solved the world’s problems? Layers of protection analysis (LOPA) drives hazardous event rates to 10-4 per year or less, yet industry is still experiencing several disastrous events per year. If one estimates 3,000 operating units worldwide and industry experiences approximately 3 major incidents per year, the true industry accident rate is a staggering 3 / 3,000 per year (i.e. 10-3). All the while our LOPA calculations are assuring us we have achieved an event rate of 10-6. Something is not adding up! Rather than fussing over an unobtainable numbers game; wouldn’t it be wiser to address protection layers which are operating below requirements? We are (hopefully) performing audits and assessments on our protection layers and generating findings. Why are we not focusing our efforts on the results of these findings? Instead we demand more bandages (protect layers) for amputated limbs (LOPA scenarios) instead of upgrading those bandages to tourniquets. Perhaps the dilemma is we cannot effectively prioritize our corrective actions based on findings. Likely we have too much information and the real problems are lost in the chaos. What if there was a way to decipher the information overload and visualize the impact of our short comings? Enter Bayes rule to provide a means to visualize findings through a protection layer health meter approach; to prioritize action items and staunch the bleeding. by Keith Brumbaugh Topics include: Bayes, Bayes rule, Bayes theory, LOPA, IPL, SIS, SIF, SIL Calculations, systematic failure, human factors, human reliability, operations, maintenance, IEC 61511, ANSI/ISA 61511, hardware reliability, proven in use, confidence interval, credible range, safety lifecycle , functional safety assessment , FSA stage 4, health meter. Click here to view the complete whitepaper

Awarded Best Paper Award at the 2025 TEES Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center-TAMU (MKO) Safety & Risk Conference Abstract November 2025 — Greg Pajak, aeSolutions Senior Specialist, ICA — A midstream facility implemented a systematic alarm rationalization program across two critical units, achieving unprecedented reductions in urgent alarm loads. Unit A reduced urgent alarms from 45% to 7% (84% reduction), while Unit B decreased from 62% to 5% (92% reduction). This paper presents the methodology, implementation approach, and quantified results of applying the ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016 alarm management lifecycle in a brownfield LNG facility. The comprehensive approach integrated automation, process safety, and operations perspectives, resulting in significant improvements in operator effectiveness and process safety performance. Cross-functional teams utilized the Maximum Severity Method for consistent, risk-based prioritization across 48,156 potential alarm points in Unit A and 7,009 points in Unit B. The project eliminated over 5,900 nuisance urgent alarms in Unit A and 1,960 in Unit B, transforming alarm systems from sources of operator overload into effective tools for abnormal situation management. Results demonstrate that properly implemented alarm management programs can achieve transformational improvements in operational safety and efficiency, providing a replicable model for the LNG industry. 1. Introduction The liquefied natural gas (LNG) industry faces unique operational challenges due to cryogenic processes, flammable materials, and complex interdependencies between process units. Effective alarm management becomes critical for maintaining safe operations while preventing operator overload during abnormal situations. Despite widespread recognition of alarm management importance following major incidents like Texas City (2005) and Buncefield (2005), many facilities struggle to fully implement comprehensive alarm management lifecycles. This Facility recognized that partial alarm management efforts yield limited benefits and committed to systematic implementation of the complete ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016 lifecycle. As a brownfield site with existing legacy systems, the facility faced additional challenges requiring thorough re-evaluation of alarm configurations across multiple platforms including Honeywell Experion DCS, SCADA systems, and Safety Manager. This paper presents results from two major alarm rationalization projects: Unit A and Unit B The scope encompassed all facility alarms interacting with normal process operations, excluding only fire and gas system alarms addressed separately. The rationalization effort aimed to ensure each alarm met the fundamental definition: "An audible and/or visible means of indicating to the operator an equipment malfunction, process deviation, or abnormal condition requiring a response." 2. Background and Literature Review 2.1 Alarm Management Standards Evolution The process industries have developed comprehensive standards for alarm management, with ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016 and IEC 62682:2022 representing current best practices. These standards define a complete lifecycle approach encompassing ten stages: Philosophy, Identification, Rationalization, Detailed Design, Implementation, Operation, Maintenance, Monitoring and Assessment, Management of Change, and Audit. Research demonstrates that facilities implementing partial lifecycle elements achieve limited improvements, while comprehensive implementation yields transformational results. The Abnormal Situation Management (ASM) Consortium estimates that poor alarm management contributes to $20 billion annually in lost production and incidents across the process industries. 2.2 LNG Industry Specific Challenges LNG facilities present unique alarm management challenges due to: Cryogenic temperature operations requiring precise control Vapor management systems with rapid dynamics Integration between liquefaction, storage, and regasification Stringent environmental compliance requirements Post-incident regulatory scrutiny These factors necessitate alarm systems that support rapid, accurate operator response while minimizing cognitive load during upset conditions. 2.3 Quantifying Alarm Management Performance Industry benchmarks established by the Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association (EEMUA) Publication 191 define acceptable alarm system performance metrics: Average alarm rate: <1 alarm per 10 minutes Peak alarm rate: <10 alarms per 10 minutes Alarm priority distribution: ~80% Low, ~15% Medium, ~5% High However, many facilities operate far outside these guidelines, with urgent/critical alarms often comprising 30-60% of total alarm load, creating conditions where operators cannot effectively respond to genuine process upsets. 3. Methodology 3.1 Project Scope and Timeline The alarm rationalization encompassed two major operational units: Unit A : Conducted January 29 - March 26, 2024 Unit B:  Conducted March 11-15, 2024 Both projects utilized hybrid in-person and remote participation via Webex to accommodate team members across multiple locations. 3.2 Team Composition Cross-functional teams included: Process Controls Engineering Process Engineering Operations personnel Operations Management Third-party facilitators (Applied Engineering Solutions) experienced in alarm rationalization methodology This diverse composition ensured comprehensive evaluation incorporating technical design, operational experience, and process safety perspectives. 3.3 Rationalization Methodology The team employed a knowledge-based Maximum Severity Method for alarm prioritization. This approach evaluates each alarm against multiple consequence categories:    Table 1: Severity Level Matrix Severity Level Safety/Environmental Economic Impact Equipment Damage Catastrophic Fatality/Major Environmental Release >$10M Total Loss Severe Lost Time Injury/Reportable Release $1M-$10M Major Damage Moderate Medical Treatment/Minor Release $100K-$1M Significant Repair Minor First Aid/No Release <$100K Minor Repair The highest severity across all categories determines final alarm priority, ensuring conservative risk assessment. 3.4 Documentation and Analysis Tools The rationalization process utilized: Existing Honeywell Experion alarm database exports Current Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs) aeAlarm software (Sphera PHA-Pro® based) for systematic documentation Historical alarm activation data to validate setpoints Each credible alarm was documented with: Purpose and process deviation addressed Consequence of no operator action Required operator response Time available for response Priority assignment rationale    3.5 Alarm Qualification Criteria Alarms were evaluated against the site's Alarm Management criteria: Does the condition require operator action? Is the operator the primary respondent? Is there sufficient time for operator response? Will the operator know what action to take? Can the operator take the required action? Points failing these criteria were reclassified as events, journals, or removed entirely. 4. Results and Discussion 4.1 Unit A Alarm Reduction Results This rationalization achieved dramatic improvements in alarm system performance: Table 2: Unit A: Alarm Distribution - Before and After Rationalization Priority Pre-Rationalization Post-Rationalization Reduction Urgent 6,473 45% 571 7% 91.2% High 541 4% 405 5% 25.1% Low 7,259 51% 6,674 87% 8.1% Total 14,273 100% 7,650 100% 46.4% The 91.2% reduction in urgent alarms represents elimination of 5,902 nuisance or improperly classified alarms that previously competed for operator attention during critical situations.   Figure 1: Unit A Alarm Priority Distribution Transformation   4.2 Unit B Results Unit B demonstrated even more dramatic improvements: Table 3: Unit B Alarm Distribution - Before and After Rationalization Priority Pre-Rationalization Post-Rationalization Reduction Urgent 2,036 62% 76 5% 96.3% High 377 12% 202 14% 46.4% Low 853 26% 1,164 81% -36.5%* Total 3,266 100% 1,442 100% 55.8% *Low priority alarms increased as urgent alarms were properly reclassified The 96.3% reduction in urgent alarms eliminated 1,960 improperly configured alarms, dramatically improving the signal-to-noise ratio for genuine process upsets.       Figure 2: Unit B Alarm Priority Distribution Transformation   4.3 Systematic Improvements Identified The rationalization process identified 129 total action items across both units: UNIT A: 58 action items UNIT B: 71 action items Common improvement categories included: Elimination of redundant alarms on single process deviations Proper configuration of alarm deadbands and delay timers Reclassification of informational points to events/journals Integration of alarm response procedures with operator training Correction of alarm priority inversions 4.4 Operational Impact Assessment The rationalized alarm system has fundamentally transformed the operating environment at this facility. While specific quantitative metrics are proprietary, the qualitative improvements in operational performance have been significant. The dramatic reduction in alarm load, particularly in the urgent category, has created a calmer, more focused control room environment where operators can effectively manage the process rather than simply reacting to constant alarms. Compliance and Documentation Benefits 100% of remaining alarms now have documented response procedures Full traceability established for regulatory audits Alarm system performance now aligns with EEMUA 191 guidelines Complete audit trail maintained through aeAlarm documentation 5. Implementation Lessons and Best Practices 5.1 Critical Success Factors 1. Executive Sponsorship and Resource Commitment  Full lifecycle implementation requires significant time investment from operations and engineering personnel. Executive support ensured adequate resource allocation and schedule priority. 2. Operator Engagement Throughout Process  Including experienced operators in every rationalization session captured critical institutional knowledge and ensured practical response procedures. 3. Systematic Methodology Application  Consistent application of the Maximum Severity Method prevented subjective priority assignment and ensured conservative risk assessment. 4. Integration with Existing PSM Systems  Linking alarm rationalization with Management of Change, PHA revalidation, and operator training programs embedded improvements in operational practice. 5.2 Common Challenges and Solutions Challenge 1: Securing Adequate Time from Key Personnel   Solution : The primary challenge was obtaining large blocks of time from busy operational staff. The project succeeded by using flexible scheduling, breaking sessions into manageable durations, and emphasizing the long-term operational benefits of participation. Challenge 2: Resistance to Removing "Historical" Alarms   Solution : Data-driven demonstration of alarm flooding impact during actual events convinced stakeholders to eliminate non-critical alarms. The involvement of extremely knowledgeable staff who understood both process and operations proved invaluable in making these decisions smoothly. Challenge 3: Data Consistency Across Systems   Solution : Careful verification processes ensured alignment between disparate PLC systems and the master alarm database, preventing loss or duplication of critical alarm information. 5.3 Technology and Tool Considerations The aeAlarm rationalization tool proved essential for: Maintaining consistency across multiple sessions Tracking action items and implementation status Generating operator response documentation Supporting regulatory audit requirements Integration with existing Honeywell Experion systems required careful configuration management to preserve rationalization decisions during system updates. 6. Industry Applications and Recommendations 6.1 Scalability to Other LNG Facilities The methodology demonstrated here scales effectively to other facilities by: Adapting severity matrices to site-specific risk tolerances Adjusting team composition based on organizational structure Phasing implementation based on unit criticality Leveraging common control system platforms 6.2 Recommended Implementation Approach Based on our experience, optimal implementation follows this sequence: Phase 1: Foundation (Months 1-2) Develop site-specific alarm philosophy Establish performance baselines Form cross-functional team Select rationalization tools Phase 2: Pilot Implementation (Months 3-4) Select representative unit/system Complete full rationalization cycle Validate methodology and tools Refine procedures based on lessons learned Phase 3: Full Deployment (Months 5-12) Systematically address remaining units Implement approved changes Train operators on new alarm schemes Establish monitoring systems Phase 4: Sustainment (Ongoing) Monthly performance reviews Quarterly alarm health assessments Annual philosophy updates Continuous improvement initiatives 6.2 Return on Investment Considerations While specific project costs are proprietary, the business case for alarm rationalization is compelling. The investment in this project is minor compared to the potential costs of: Operator hours spent managing nuisance alarms Extended troubleshooting time during process upsets Potential incidents resulting from operator overload Regulatory penalties for non-compliance with RAGAGEP Industry benchmarks demonstrate typical returns including: Reduced operator errors through improved situational awareness Decreased unplanned downtime from better upset management Lower incident investigation costs Invaluable improvement in regulatory compliance position 7. Conclusions This alarm rationalization project demonstrates that systematic implementation of the ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016 lifecycle can achieve transformational improvements in alarm system performance. The 84-92% reductions in urgent alarm loads across two major units significantly exceed typical industry achievements, validating the comprehensive approach. Key conclusions from this implementation: Full lifecycle implementation is essential  - Partial efforts yield marginal benefits while comprehensive programs achieve step-change improvements. Cross-functional engagement drives success  - Integration of operations, engineering, and process safety perspectives ensures practical, sustainable solutions. Quantified baselines enable continuous improvement - Detailed before/after metrics demonstrate value and guide ongoing optimization. Brownfield challenges are surmountable  - Legacy systems can be successfully rationalized with proper methodology and commitment. Operator effectiveness improvements justify investment  - Enhanced situational awareness and response capability directly improve process safety performance. The dramatic reductions achieved here establish new benchmarks for alarm management excellence in the Midstream industry. As facilities face increasing operational complexity and regulatory scrutiny, comprehensive alarm rationalization becomes not just best practice but operational necessity. 8. Future Work Building on current achievements, future initiatives include: Advanced Alarm Management Techniques   Implementation of state-based alarming for startup/shutdown Dynamic alarm suppression during known process transitions Predictive analytics for alarm flood prevention Integration with Digital Transformation   Incorporation of machine learning for nuisance alarm identification Real-time alarm performance dashboards Mobile operator notification systems Industry Collaboration   Development of LNG-specific alarm management guidelines Benchmarking studies across multiple facilities Knowledge sharing through industry forums Continuous Improvement Metrics   Correlation of alarm performance with safety incidents Operator workload quantification studies Economic impact validation The success achieved through systematic alarm rationalization provides a foundation for continued advancement in operational excellence and process safety performance. References ANSI/ISA-18.2-2016, Management of Alarm Systems for the Process Industries, International Society of Automation, Research Triangle Park, NC. IEC 62682:2022, Management of alarm systems for the process industries, International Electrotechnical Commission, Geneva, Switzerland. EEMUA Publication 191, Alarm Systems - A Guide to Design, Management and Procurement, 3rd Edition, Engineering Equipment and Materials Users Association, London, UK, 2013. Rothenberg, D.H., "Alarm Management for Process Control: A Best-Practice Guide for Design, Implementation, and Use of Industrial Alarm Systems," Momentum Press, New York, 2018. Hollifield, B., and Habibi, E., "The Alarm Management Handbook: A Comprehensive Guide," PAS, Houston, TX, 2011. U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board, "Investigation Report: Refinery Explosion and Fire," Report No. 2005-04-I-TX, Washington, DC, 2007. Health and Safety Executive, "The Buncefield Incident 11 December 2005: The final report of the Major Incident Investigation Board," Bootle, UK, 2008. Abnormal Situation Management Consortium, "Effective Alarm Management Practices," Honeywell Process Solutions, Phoenix, AZ, 2019. Center for Chemical Process Safety, "Guidelines for Safe Automation of Chemical Processes," 2nd Edition, AIChE, New York, 2017. Stauffer, T., and Sands, N.P., "Alarm Management and ISA-18.2: Management of Alarm Systems for the Process Industries," ISA Automation Week Proceedings, 2014. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the dedication of operations and engineering personnel who committed extensive time to the rationalization process. Special recognition goes to Applied Engineering Solutions for their expert facilitation and the operations teams who provided invaluable institutional knowledge. This project's success reflects the organization's commitment to operational excellence and process safety leadership.

Often times when a person is blamed for “not thinking,” the reality is they were thinking, but were not aware of it. This is the theory of System 1 (i.e., Fast) versus System 2 (i.e., Slow) thinking that explains we are really two people: Our conscious aware selves (System 2 thinking), and a dominant “fast” subconscious making most of our decisions (System 1 thinking) without being consciously aware of it in the moment (to the point that some have argued there is no such thing as “free will”). The heuristics (i.e., mental short cuts) we use to think in System 1 are necessary to make it through a day (it is exhausting to maintain a continuous conscious stream of thought), and often lead to good outcomes. However, System 1 thinking can make us vulnerable to systematic biases (i.e., mental traps) that arise from the use of those heuristics. It is necessary to be aware of the traps System 1 thinking can create, because often times that is our only defense against them. In this respect, “fast thinking” represents one of the fundamental limits to achieving safe operation. In addition to awareness, there is a need where possible to design operator tasks and the interfaces they use to minimize the likelihood of systematic bias occurring when thinking in System 1. Lastly, it would be useful to provide designs that could increase the potential for the operator to engage System 2 thinking (consciousness) when required, which is less susceptible to biases. This paper proposes a combined approach of discussing the cognitive psychology behind System 1 and System 2 thinking, the types of heuristics we use, the biases that result, and operator task and interface design that can minimize the likelihood of systematic bias. The paper will incorporate the learnings from 5 years of safety critical Task Analysis performed for field and control room tasks. A practical operator response to abnormal situation model will be described that will link the heuristics used and potential biases that may occur, as well as design features to minimize the likelihood of those occurring. As presented at the 2020 AIChE Spring Meeting & 16th Global Congress on Process Safety. Click here to view the complete whitepaper Process Safety Services

aeSolutions - A consulting, engineering and system integration company that provides industrial process safety, fired equipment and automation lifecycle solutions and tools. We can help with Toxic Gas Detection, Machinery Safety, Alarm Management, Safety Instrumented Systems, and more. Engineering smarter, safer operations. Define. Define. Define. Define. Define. Define. Define. Define. — Resilience Isn't a Bonus, It's a Benchmark — We provide critical system solutions that empower our clients through more resilient operations and safer communities where they operate. Our unique approach is to pair risk-focused industry experts with a proven project delivery team. Speak With One of Our Experts Today About Your Facility's Resilience — If It’s Critical, We Have it Covered — At aeSolutions we help clients reduce project chaos and strengthen performance by integrating the safety lifecycle with the full project lifecycle, and our PMO professionals ensure structure, accountability, and measurable progress. We work with your team to close gaps, clarify responsibilities, and convert fragmented practices into a unified approach that protects people, assets, and uptime. We help you move from risk to resilience with clarity and confidence. — Trusted By Industry Leaders — Ag Chem Battery Materials & Mineral Processing Chemical Manufacturing Energy & Power Generation Hydrogen Production & Processing Metals & Mining Processing Oil & Gas Production & Processing Petrochemicals & Hydrocarbon Processing Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences Manufacturing Renewable Fuels & Bioenergy Specialty Chemicals & Advanced Materials Utilities & Critical Infrastructure Ag Chem Battery Materials & Mineral Processing Chemical Manufacturing Energy & Power Generation Hydrogen Production & Processing Metals & Mining Processing Oil & Gas Production & Processing Petrochemicals & Hydrocarbon Processing Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences Manufacturing Renewable Fuels & Bioenergy Specialty Chemicals & Advanced Materials Utilities & Critical Infrastructure Ag Chem Battery Materials & Mineral Processing Chemical Manufacturing Energy & Power Generation Hydrogen Production & Processing Metals & Mining Processing Oil & Gas Production & Processing Petrochemicals & Hydrocarbon Processing Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences Manufacturing Renewable Fuels & Bioenergy Specialty Chemicals & Advanced Materials Utilities & Critical Infrastructure Click Here to Chat With Our Industry Experts — DON'T JUST TAKE OUR WORD FOR IT — Evidence-Backed Results Custom SI-BMS Solution Enhances Reliability and Safety for Critical Pipeline Transportation Facility Achieving a High-Risk Systems Overhaul on an Accelerated Schedule Multi-Fuel Boiler BMS Upgrade for Chlor Alkali Production Facility Chemical Facility FEL3 & Detail Design Achieves PSM OSHA Compliance Under Total Installed Cost Budget | A Masterclass In aeSolutions’ Lifecycle Solutions Capabilities Designing and Implementing a Fire & Gas Detection System for a Hydrogen Production Plant A Strategic Integration of SIS, BMS, and PSM in a Boiler Fuel Conversion Project Alarm Management for a Greenfield LNG Facility Pharma Company Detecting Natural Gas Leaks in Boiler House Large Specialty Chemical Company Reduces Alarm Floods Simplified, Cost-Effective, and Consistent Acidic Compound Detection Energy Company Reduces Regulatory Compliance Costs Saving Almost $50 Million Water Cannons Protect Community from Anhydrous Ammonia Leaks Pharmaceutical Company Required Toxic & Combustible Gas Detection System Complex Hot Cutover of Large Natural Gas Processing Facilities Specialty Chemical Site’s Increasingly Complicated Cutover “Fit for Purpose” Solution Reduces Planned Downtime by 66% Protecting Personnel with Practical Gas Detector Placement Alarm System Rationalization and Safe Operating Limit for Energy Production Custom SI-BMS Solution Enhances Reliability and Safety for Critical Pipeline Transportation Facility Achieving a High-Risk Systems Overhaul on an Accelerated Schedule Multi-Fuel Boiler BMS Upgrade for Chlor Alkali Production Facility Chemical Facility FEL3 & Detail Design Achieves PSM OSHA Compliance Under Total Installed Cost Budget | A Masterclass In aeSolutions’ Lifecycle Solutions Capabilities Designing and Implementing a Fire & Gas Detection System for a Hydrogen Production Plant A Strategic Integration of SIS, BMS, and PSM in a Boiler Fuel Conversion Project Alarm Management for a Greenfield LNG Facility Pharma Company Detecting Natural Gas Leaks in Boiler House Large Specialty Chemical Company Reduces Alarm Floods Simplified, Cost-Effective, and Consistent Acidic Compound Detection Energy Company Reduces Regulatory Compliance Costs Saving Almost $50 Million Water Cannons Protect Community from Anhydrous Ammonia Leaks Pharmaceutical Company Required Toxic & Combustible Gas Detection System Complex Hot Cutover of Large Natural Gas Processing Facilities Specialty Chemical Site’s Increasingly Complicated Cutover “Fit for Purpose” Solution Reduces Planned Downtime by 66% Protecting Personnel with Practical Gas Detector Placement Alarm System Rationalization and Safe Operating Limit for Energy Production View More Case Studies Here — News & Resources — Whitepaper: Achieving 84-92% Urgent Alarm Reduction Through Comprehensive Lifecycle Implementation: A Dual-Unit Midstream Case Study Scoping Your Industrial Project: Best Practices for Success Control System Migrations | Part 7 | Best Practices for Installation, Testing, & Commissioning The PHA Recommendation Playbook | Part 2 | Untangling Technical Complexity The PHA Recommendation Playbook | Part 1 | Managing Resource Constraints Processing Magazine: The Need for a Control System Migration: Building the Case to Upper Management — Let's Discuss Your Facility's Needs —

A functional test is used to verify that a system or component operates according to its design specifications. Functional testing ensures that safety and control systems perform correctly, reducing the risk of malfunction during operation. Acronyms & Terms Glossary <- More Definitions Functional Test A functional test is used to verify that a system or component operates according to its design specifications. Functional testing ensures that safety and control systems perform correctly, reducing the risk of malfunction during operation. Our Services Whitepaper: Achieving 84-92% Urgent Alarm Reduction Through Comprehensive Lifecycle Implementation: A Dual-Unit Midstream Case Study Awarded Best Paper Award at the 2025 TEES Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center-TAMU (MKO) Safety & Risk Conference Abstract November 2025 — Greg Pajak, aeSolutions Senior Specialist, ICA — A midstream facility implemented a systematic alarm rationalization program across two critical units, achieving unprecedented reductions in urgent alarm loads. Unit A reduced urgent alarms from 45% to 7% (84% reduction), while Unit B decreased from 62% to 5% (92% reduction). This paper Scoping Your Industrial Project: Best Practices for Success Scoping your industrial project is more than a kickoff step—it’s the foundation for budget, schedule, and long-term success. From aligning stakeholders to pressure-testing assumptions, a dynamic scoping strategy helps prevent costly missteps, manage risks, and keep your project on track from concept to completion. Control System Migrations | Part 7 | Best Practices for Installation, Testing, & Commissioning The cutover phase is the defining moment of a control system migration, where planning meets execution. From thorough backups and pre-shutdown prep to mechanical completion and commissioning, every step must be precise. Skipping even small details can lead to costly setbacks, while disciplined execution ensures a smooth, successful transition.

Refer to Covert Failure. Acronyms & Terms Glossary <- More Definitions Latent Failure Refer to Covert Failure. Our Services Whitepaper: Achieving 84-92% Urgent Alarm Reduction Through Comprehensive Lifecycle Implementation: A Dual-Unit Midstream Case Study Awarded Best Paper Award at the 2025 TEES Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center-TAMU (MKO) Safety & Risk Conference Abstract November 2025 — Greg Pajak, aeSolutions Senior Specialist, ICA — A midstream facility implemented a systematic alarm rationalization program across two critical units, achieving unprecedented reductions in urgent alarm loads. Unit A reduced urgent alarms from 45% to 7% (84% reduction), while Unit B decreased from 62% to 5% (92% reduction). This paper Scoping Your Industrial Project: Best Practices for Success Scoping your industrial project is more than a kickoff step—it’s the foundation for budget, schedule, and long-term success. From aligning stakeholders to pressure-testing assumptions, a dynamic scoping strategy helps prevent costly missteps, manage risks, and keep your project on track from concept to completion. Control System Migrations | Part 7 | Best Practices for Installation, Testing, & Commissioning The cutover phase is the defining moment of a control system migration, where planning meets execution. From thorough backups and pre-shutdown prep to mechanical completion and commissioning, every step must be precise. Skipping even small details can lead to costly setbacks, while disciplined execution ensures a smooth, successful transition.