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.

As the share of green energy continues to increase worldwide, the demand for hydrogen is projected to grow rapidly. Production rates in 2022 of nearly 100 mT [1] are expected to triple to 300 mT by 2030 [2]. With such a rapid growth rate, many new players are entering the hydrogen production market. Hydrogen vapors are especially hazardous due to their large flammability range, high reactivity, and low minimum ignition energy. A great need therefore exists for process safety knowledge sharing that is focused on hydrogen safety at such facilities. Hydrogen behaves very differently from other materials. While hydrogen vapors are known to rapidly rise due to its very low molecular weight, liquefied hydrogen (LH2) is known to stay low to the ground including just after evaporating like other cryogenic liquids. Hydrogen has other unique characteristics as well due to a very low normal boiling point. The viscosity of LH2 becomes very low, allowing it to flow with minimal losses of kinetic energy. Altogether, a flammable vapor cloud from a LH2 release can travel a far distance even though it does not form a liquid pool. Advances in hydrogen safety are forthcoming and continue to evolve. In addition, several software vendors have specifically focused on more accurately modeling the properties and consequences of hydrogen releases. A selection of case studies will be shared in which hypothetical indoor and outdoor liquid and vapor hydrogen releases from new hydrogen facilities were evaluated. The case study selection will include an analysis of selection and placement of gas and flame detectors for hydrogen releases and a review of potential hazard preventions and mitigations. Click here to view the complete whitepaper

Updated June 2026 – By aeSolutions Technical Team — When planning your industrial project, a well-defined scope isn’t just a preliminary step — it’s the quintessence of getting your budget, schedule, and project lifecycle established. Done right, scoping helps teams prevent costly overruns, delays, and mismanaged resources. Yet, with competing priorities and complex cross-functional needs, critical aspects of the scoping process often do not receive the attention needed for setting a strong foundation, leaving projects vulnerable to avoidable risks. To address these challenges, implementing a clear project development plan — grounded in best practices — can ensure that scoping is comprehensive and realistic, supporting projects from concept to completion. Below are best practices to build an industrial project scoping strategy. Recognize That Scoping is a Dynamic Process Industrial project scoping isn’t a one-and-done static activity. It’s a dynamic, process that evolves as new information becomes available. It is normal for needs to shift over a project’s lifecycle as functional demands, regulatory requirements, and resource availability changes. Scoping requires teams to regularly revisit and refine an initial project plan, ensuring that organizations remain adaptable in addressing unforeseen challenges incorporating improvements as the project progresses. It’s about a sequence for validations, preventing the likelihood of jumping to conclusions. Implementing Progressive Scoping Reviews To establish a process for your project lifecycle, it’s beneficial to integrate scoping reviews into project milestones. This could mean revisiting the scope after each major phase, such as design, procurement, and initial implementation, or conducting scope checks in response to significant operational or environmental changes. Regular scoping reviews provide an opportunity to validate assumptions, assess performance against key metrics, and adjust for any emerging risks. A Practical Case Study In one case study example, a large industrial client was going through an equipment modernization project that aimed to upgrade multiple thermal oxidizers, incinerators, fired heaters, and boilers. The project’s complexity was compounded by the need to ensure each component adhered to rigorous safety and functional standards. Unfortunately, the initial project scoping had not adequately accounted for cross-functional collaboration, which led to disconnects between design and implementation. Furthermore, the scoping had failed to consider the long-term maintenance requirements necessary to keep the newly modernized systems sustainable. This misalignment in the early stages could have resulted in costly project revisions if the issue hadn’t been caught before detailed design work began. By bringing in additional expertise and refocusing on an aligned scoping strategy, the team was able to avoid these potential pitfalls, highlighting the importance of accurate and comprehensive scoping from the outset. This case exemplifies how asking the right questions early can illuminate critical needs that might otherwise go unnoticed, ensuring that projects are not only feasible but also optimized for a successful project lifecycle Ultimately, a dynamic approach transforms scoping from a preliminary task into an integral part of project success, ensuring each phase builds towards a cohesive, sustainable outcome. Ensure That Your Organizational Culture is Ready For project scoping to truly succeed, an organization’s culture must be primed to support it. This involves fostering a collaborative, integrated, and prioritized approach that connects the organization’s broader objectives and engages all necessary stakeholders. Three guiding concepts, collaboration, integration, and prioritization, are essential to building a resilient project scope that can adapt to changes and overcome the inevitable challenges that arise in complex industrial projects. · Collaboration ensures that all relevant stakeholders have a voice in defining project requirements and identifying potential risks early. This open communication creates a shared understanding of project goals and constraints, reducing misunderstandings and aligning team efforts. · Integration means that the project scope is aligned with broader organizational objectives, such as safety, efficiency, and regulatory compliance. By embedding these goals within the project’s core framework, teams create a unified roadmap that guides decision-making across all stages. · Prioritization helps teams focus on the most critical tasks, especially when resources or timelines are tight. By ranking tasks based on their impact on safety, budget, and schedule, a prioritized approach ensures that the project remains on track and adaptable, even when unforeseen challenges arise. This alignment between culture and process not only enhances the success of individual projects but also reinforces a disciplined, goal-oriented mindset across the organization. Ask the Right Questions to Pressure Test Your Assumptions A well-defined project scope requires more than initial assumptions, it demands a thorough examination of expertise, processes, collaboration, feasibility, and objectives. By asking the right questions, organizations can pressure-test their assumptions and build a scope that anticipates challenges, leverages the right expertise, and aligns with measurable goals. Below are five critical questions to guide an effective scoping process. 1. Do You Have the Right Expertise on Board? Organizations often underestimate the expertise needed for industrial projects. Are the right people in the right rooms and integrated into the right discussions? Before beginning a project, it’s important for team leaders to carefully evaluate whether internal groups would benefit from the addition of consultants to supplement the effort. During the scoping stages of a project, the right expertise can help widen the aperture of an organization’s field of view — which leads to a higher integrity outcome downstream. 2. What Discovery Steps Are Essential for a Detailed Plan? Project scoping will typically begin with a planned set of discovery activities. However, a common mistake is a lack of coordination between efforts, in addition to improper documentation. Even though things are getting done, the order of operations may be suboptimal. The solution is to establish a clear set of steps that produces a detailed plan before the discovery process commences. Typically, a well-formed discovery process entails: · In-depth interviews and workshops with stakeholders such as project sponsors, end-users, operators, and maintenance staff, in addition to workshops and meetings to facilitate open discussion. · Functional reviews to examine existing processes, systems, and workflows to identify inefficiencies, bottlenecks, and areas for improvement. · Technical evaluations to help assess equipment, infrastructure, and technology. · Regulatory compliance checks, which involve reviewing applicable regulations, standards, and compliance requirements. · Objectives-setting and outcome mapping, which connects the organization’s goals to specific organizational objectives. · A comprehensive hazard analysis to identify potential risks that could impact the project. The final stage of the discovery process is to develop a comprehensive project development plan and path to execution. 3. How Will Collaboration Continue Beyond Discovery? Collaboration begins in discovery and continues throughout the project lifecycle. Successful projects require continual input, buy-in, and feedback from stakeholders ranging from engineers to managers, team leaders, process experts, and executives. However, organizations are typically navigating heavy time and resource constraints, which can make stakeholder involvement a challenge. In these situations, the key is to incorporate the right expertise at carefully defined touchpoints. One way to develop an integration protocol is to understand how each stakeholder is impacted from the project. What will be the ongoing maintenance requirements? How will responsibilities shift? In terms of development, it is important to clarify expectations and collaboration parameters upfront. 4. Is the Development Plan Realistic and Achievable? The development plan should include: · A clear statement of goals and the desired outcomes to be achieved · A review of all complex regulatory and safety requirements · A clear, detailed, and precise scope definition that specifies all deliverables, tasks, and milestones · A resource allocation strategy that encompasses all personnel, equipment, and budget considerations needed for the successful execution of the project · A development schedule including documentation and approval steps that outline stakeholder participation · Roles and responsibilities to appropriately allocate the tasks to qualified resources Depending on the project, it may be necessary to create multiple options for comparison. Comparative analysis can help to evaluate the practicality and viability of the options from a technical, financial, and functional perspective to ensure the optimal path forward. 5. Are Your Goals Comprehensive and Measurable? Comprehensive and measurable goals are essential for the success of any industrial project, particularly if a scoping process necessitates a changing roadmap. To make goals measurable, each objective should have specific metrics or milestones that can be tracked and assessed over time. This allows project leaders to monitor progress, make informed adjustments, and hold teams accountable for delivering results. By setting goals that are both comprehensive and measurable, organizations can better manage resources, anticipate challenges, and achieve long-lasting project outcomes. Goals should address all critical aspects of the project, from safety and functional efficiency to regulatory compliance and cost-effectiveness. Connecting the Dots When Scoping Your Industrial Project By adopting these best practices and committing to a structured scoping process, industrial organizations can drive projects toward success with greater clarity, adaptability, and alignment with their strategic goals. Scoping effectively means more than meeting initial requirements; it requires ensuring that every stage of a project is aligned with evolving organizational needs and external demands. This integrated approach allows teams to navigate complex challenges, manage risks, and optimize resources throughout the project lifecycle. Ultimately, a well-defined and dynamic scoping strategy is the foundation for project lifecycle success. The process begins with ensuring your organizational culture is ready to ask the right questions early on. …And If You’re Having Trouble Connecting the Dots Scoping an industrial project is no small feat. But even with the best intentions, many organizations find that they lack the internal capacity or expertise to fully implement the strategies we’ve shared. If your team recognizes the value in these best practices but lacks the bandwidth or technical proficiency to execute them effectively, engaging external expertise could help bridge the gap. Working with a comprehensive project development solutions provider like aeSolutions can help you connect the dots between your goals and execution. By partnering with an experienced project development provider, you can reduce risks, optimize resources, and achieve a cohesive, goal-oriented outcome without overstretching your team. Scoping your project is paramount to its success, and having the right expertise to support you at every step can make all the difference. If you're ready to enhance your project’s potential, consider reaching out to a trusted partner to help you navigate the path forward with confidence.

May 2025 - Check out our contributed content in Processing Magazine . This article, written by Tom McGreevy, explains five tips to include in your conversation with leadership to secure their support for control system migration projects. Click here to read the full article in Processing Magazine Written by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE Senior Project Manager at aeSolutions . Read the full article on Processing Magazine here: The Need for a Control System Migration: Building the Case to Upper Management

May 2025 - Check out our coverage in Chemical Processing's "How They Made It Work" series that features our FGS 1300 Fire and Gas alarm controller . This article dives into how the FGS 1300 was implemented in a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility's boiler house as a natural gas leak-detection and isolation system, based on a PHA recommendation. Click here to read the full article in Chemical Processing Written by Warren Johnson, PE, PMP, Senior Project Manager at aeSolutions . Read the full article here: How They Made It Work: aeSolutions' FGS 1300 Fire and Gas Alarm Controller

Introduction | Process Hazard Analysis Revalidation April 2025 — by Carolyn Bott, Process Safety Group Manager — In the world of industrial operations, hazards are a given — but unmanaged hazards are a risk no facility can afford. A well-executed Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) is a vital safeguard, helping teams identify potential risks and define the controls needed to mitigate them. But a PHA isn’t a one-time event. As facilities and operations evolve, so must the analysis. That’s where a PHA Revalidation comes in. What is a PHA Revalidation? A PHA revalidation is a systematic update of an existing PHA study to ensure that it accurately reflects current operations, risks, and safeguards. Mandated under OSHA’s Process Safety Management (PSM) standard  (29 CFR 1910.119), PHA revalidations are required at least once every five years. This ensures that facilities consistently assess whether existing safeguards and Independent Protection Layers  (IPLs) are still appropriate and effective. Unlike a first-time PHA, a revalidation starts with reviewing the previous study. The team evaluates modifications — be it process design, control systems, staffing, procedures, or incident history — and determines whether those changes introduce new risks or warrant updates to the previous Process Hazard Analysis study. It should be noted that in some cases, a facility may determine that the existing PHA is no longer a reliable baseline — perhaps because of major modifications, process redesign, or poor quality in the original study. In these situations, a full PHA redo may be the better option. Methodologies Commonly Used in PHA Revalidations Several risk assessment methodologies are used during PHA revalidations, depending on process complexity and organizational preference. These include: HAZOP (Hazard and Operability Study) : A systematic, guideword-based approach for continuous and batch processes LOPA (Layers of Protection Analysis) : A method for evaluating the effectiveness of protection layers in reducing the frequency or consequence severity of hazardous events What-If and Checklist Analyses : Useful for simpler systems or as supplementary tools HAZID (Hazard Identification Study) : Often applied in the early design phase or as a high-level review FMEA (Failure Modes and Effects Analysis) : Focuses on component-level failure scenarios Bowtie Analysis : Visual mapping of causal pathways and safeguards for major hazards These methodologies are not mutually exclusive — they are often used in combination. The chosen methodology(s) should match the process and risk profile. Regulatory Requirements and OSHA Expectations for PHA Revalidations According to OSHA, a PHA must be revalidated at least every five years to ensure it remains consistent with the current process. The revalidation must be conducted by a team with expertise in engineering, operations, and hazard analysis methodology. The team should evaluate changes in equipment, procedures, and materials; verify that recommendations from previous PHAs have been resolved; and confirm that documentation and drawings (such as P&IDs) are current. OSHA further clarifies that a PHA revalidation doesn’t need to start from scratch. It can build upon the previous PHA, provided the review is thorough and documented. Failing to properly revalidate — whether by missing the five-year deadline or conducting an insufficient review — can lead to citations and increased risk exposure. Should I Revalidate Sooner Than Five Years? While the five-year cycle is the regulatory minimum, some facilities choose or need to revalidate more frequently. Situations that may warrant earlier review include: -          Significant process changes such as new equipment, revised control strategies, or major throughput adjustments -          Facility expansions or new unit operations -          Introduction of new chemicals or process conditions -          Recurring incidents or near misses suggesting underlying hazards were missed -          Internal audits that identify PHA gaps or non-compliance -          Evolving industry standards or new safety guidance that impact existing risk assessments In such cases, updating the PHA before the five-year mark can strengthen safety performance and demonstrate due diligence to regulators and insurers. Five Common Challenges in PHA Revalidations Executing a quality PHA revalidation takes planning, expertise, and cross-functional engagement. Below, we describe five common challenges that facilities face when conducting a Process Hazard Analysis Revalidation. 1.      Inadequate Documentation and Information Management  A revalidation is only as good as the information available. If the previous PHA scenarios were poorly documented or if process safety information (P&IDs, chemistries, etc.) hasn’t been kept current, the team will struggle. Without complete, up-to-date data on what has changed since the last PHA, important scenarios might be overlooked, or the team may waste time reconfirming basic facts. 2.     Loss of Key Knowledge and Stakeholder Engagement It isn’t uncommon to find that the team who performed the initial PHA has transferred, retired, or simply moved into new roles by the time of revalidation. If a PHA Reval is not documented effectively, nor involves the appropriate process experts, understanding of the process risks can be lost. This type of insufficient stakeholder engagement can result in missing insights into how the process truly operates or deviates. Every PHA relies on the collective knowledge of its team and if that’s weakened, the revalidation may miss hazards or misunderstand the adequacy of IPLs. 3.     Poor or Inconsistent Methodology Application If your PHA revalidation isn’t executed with consistent and up-to-date methods, gaps can occur. In some cases, the prior PHA might have used a different method or risk criteria than what the company uses now, causing confusion. For example, if the initial PHA methodology was misapplied or too simplistic for the process, it can result in the need for substantial correction down the road. Ensuring a comprehensive and systematic approach is applied during revalidation is vital to avoid leaving gaps. 4.     Underestimating Time and Resources Required PHA revalidations can be resource intensive. A common mistake is assuming a revalidation will be quick since “ we’ve done this before ”, and then not allocating enough time or personnel knowledgeable in the process. The result can be rushed sessions, incomplete reviews, or missing documentation. If an organization doesn’t budget adequate time (including for pre-work and team meetings), the five-year deadline can sneak up. 5.     Failure to Close Gaps from Previous PHA Recommendations A situation that many face during a PHA revalidation is discovering that some recommendations or gaps  from the last PHA were never implemented or fully resolved. Not only does this pose an ongoing risk, but it also complicates the analysis — the team might find themselves re-discussing hazards that should have been mitigated. OSHA expects that existing PHA recommendations are tracked and completed before revalidation ​. If that hasn’t happened, your facility faces both compliance issues and potentially repetitive findings. This issue often stems from lack of a robust management system for PHA action items. Anticipating and addressing these challenges early can significantly improve the quality of your PHA revalidation process. Best Practices for an Effective PHA Revalidation To mitigate the challenges described above, facilities should adopt several best practices for PHA revalidations: Prepare thoroughly : Update your process safety information, drawings, procedures, and incident history before the first team meeting. Performing this type of “ mini   audit ” of changes and process safety performance since the last PHA will help drive the revalidation scope. Engage experienced facilitators : Facilitators with expertise in the methodology selected for the reval can guide the process and ensure consistency across nodes and scenarios. Ultimately, your PHA Reval team should consist of experienced operations personnel, engineers familiar with the process, and a competent facilitator. Additionally, involving members from the original PHA team and/or certified PHA leaders can benefit the effort. Involve stakeholders:  Cross-functional support from those in operations, engineering, maintenance, and even management stakeholders who understand the process will increase your ability to maintain consistency and accuracy throughout the revalidation process. Verify implementation of past recommendations:  A revalidation is an opportunity to check the status of all previously identified hazards. Best practice is to explicitly review how each risk scenario identified last time has been addressed. The team should verify that no known hazard has been forgotten. If some recommendations were deferred or not resolved, this is the time to reassess those risks and decide on an action. Additionally, incorporate any relevant incident learnings (from your site or industry) to enhance the prior analysis​. By looping back on past findings and new learnings, the revalidation closes gaps and solidifies your facility’s risk baseline. Document and track everything : Just as you review old recommendations, establish a strong process for following through on new PHA recommendations coming out of the revalidation. This includes clearly prioritizing them (e.g. using a risk matrix or LOPA results to rank urgency), assigning responsibility, and setting deadlines. Remember, OSHA requires documented resolution of PHA recommendations​ — having a tracking system not only aids safety but keeps your facility compliant. Consider partnering with a qualified PHA facilitator : One of the best investments for a successful PHA revalidation can be partnering with a skilled facilitator. An experienced, third-party PHA facilitator can provide a litany of benefits — including chemical and process knowledge across industries. Beyond providing expert guidance, facilitators can also serve as an objective, unbiased perspective. When considering an external PHA facilitator, look for a provider who goes beyond “ checking the boxes. ” Facilitators should also offer effective prioritization of risks and recommendations. Additionally, a facilitator should be able to present an actionable gap closure game plan that includes recommendations for trusted engineering solutions providers  who can support resolving identified issues.     You’ve Completed Your PHA Reval — What Next? A successful PHA revalidation doesn’t end when the last worksheet is signed. The real value comes from implementing recommendations and closing identified gaps. At this stage, facilities should: -          Prioritize recommendations  using risk matrices or LOPA to focus efforts on high-consequence scenarios -          Develop actionable plans  for implementation, assigning ownership, and tracking progress -          Work with a facilitator or engineering partner  who can help close common recommendations such as SIS upgrades, BPCS changes, Alarm Management improvements, BMS modifications, Facility Siting enhancements, and Fire & Gas system updates. -          Document closure , including verification of effectiveness and updates to procedures or training as needed Without follow-through, a PHA revalidation becomes a compliance checkbox rather than a meaningful tool for reducing risk. The Takeaway | Turn Your PHA Reval Findings into Forward Motion Process safety isn’t static — and your PHA shouldn’t be either. Regular, well-executed PHA revalidations are essential to staying compliant with OSHA, maintaining operational continuity, and safeguarding personnel and assets. For facilities navigating complex changes, aging infrastructure, or resource constraints, engaging with experienced PHA facilitators  can bring structure, insight, and measurable outcomes to the revalidation process. When done right, PHA revalidations don’t just ensure compliance — they create a roadmap for safer, smarter operations.

Introduction | Control System Migrations | Part 6 April 2025 — by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE — By now, you've successfully navigated the Front-End Loading (FEL) phases , clearly defined your scope, budget, and schedule , and received approval for funding. However, the real challenge arises when plans meet the unpredictability of real-world execution. Monitoring, managing changes, and reporting effectively during this execution phase are critical to a project’s success. Contractor Reporting Requirements Detailed reporting expectations must be clearly defined early — ideally during the solicitation phase  — to ensure effective project control. Three key elements to consider with contractor reporting requirements are: Required Information Must be Specified Explicitly state the type of information needed, including task progress, upcoming activities, recent accomplishments, roadblocks, and actionable items. Specify the report format ( e.g., Excel, Microsoft Project, Primavera ) to ensure data usability. Reporting Frequency Reporting intervals — which are typically established based on the project’s size — enable timely identification of issues and corrective action. Frequent communication helps maintain project momentum and clarity. Report Detail Reports should provide enough detail to enable actionable decisions without overwhelming the management team. They should also include specific metrics on schedule performance, budget status, and risk assessment outcomes. Managing Change Orders Changes will happen. Whether driven by unexpected conditions, improved technical ideas, or shifting requirements, a structured change management process with proper documentation is essential. Change orders fall into two types of categories, which is determined by the reasoning behind the change: Design Change Orders Design changes can be positively received as they often involve beneficial, innovative ways to achieve the same project goals more efficiently. Design changes usually involve adjustments in how requirements are implemented rather than what is implemented. They typically deliver cost, schedule, or reliability benefits. Scope Change Orders Usually driven by unforeseen events or missed requirements, scope changes can be particularly challenging to justify. They require a thorough evaluation and management buy-in of documented impact on costs, schedule, and potential new risks. Even legitimate scope changes can face high scrutiny, as they must demonstrate independent financial justification and alignment with organizational priorities. Both types of change orders should follow a structured approach: Document the proposed change via a Request for Information (RFI) Group review to determine if there is a compelling reason supporting the change Estimate the impact on scope, schedule, cost, & new risks Approval or rejection by the designated management team This ensures transparency and control, preventing unauthorized or detrimental changes.   Earned Value Management  Earned Value Management (EVM) is a powerful tool that integrates project scope, schedule, and budget. To leverage EVM effectively, projects must be set up correctly during FEL phases with: 1.      A well-defined Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 2.      Resource-loaded schedules 3.      Documented cost allocations Image Source EVM allows project managers to detect early deviations in schedule or budget, enabling timely corrective actions. The primary metrics used in EVM include: Planned Value (PV):   What you planned to spend. This can also be referred to as Budgeted Cost of Work Scheduled (BCWS). Earned Value (EV):   The amount of work that’s been performed and the budgeted cost of that work. Actual Cost (AC):   The actual  expenditure for the work completed, sometimes referred to as Actual Cost of Work Performed (ACWP). Regularly tracking these metrics helps maintain control and transparency, providing valuable insight into how well a team is managing budget and schedule, in addition to indicating early warnings that can help prevent minor deviations from escalating. The Takeaway Effective project monitoring, proactive change management, and thorough reporting are keys to successful control system migrations. When executed properly, these processes provide significant stress relief, enabling project teams to maintain control amidst inevitable uncertainties. Organizations benefit immensely from clearly defined reporting standards, structured change processes, and earned value management practices. By incorporating these practices early and consistently, teams enhance project outcomes and organizational confidence in project delivery. In the meantime, check out parts 1-5 of our control systems migration blog series .

When TGES America, Ltd. (hereinafter TGES America) needed a critical overhaul of the complex control system and instrumentation for the central utilities plant (CUP) of a specialty materials manufacturing plant, they turned to aeSolutions, a Siemens Solution Partner. Subsequently, due to the need to complete the project four months early, the planned cold cutover to the new systems had to be done as a hot cutover without disrupting production. TGES America, aeSolutions, and Siemens made it happen, much to the delight of the customer. February 2025 — Based in Duncan, South Carolina, TGES America opened its doors in 2015 as a subsidiary of Tokyo Gas Engineering Solutions Corporation, a global engineering and energy solution provider with more than 50 years in the energy industry. In addition to EPC services, TGES America offers U.S. industrial customers onsite energy services, for which TGES America owns the plant facilities that provide electricity, steam and other utilities needed for production. Known in aggregate as a central utilities plant (CUP), TGES America operates these facilities for customers on leases running 20 years or more. TGES America can also negotiate long-term power agreements with external utilities, including solar and other renewables so plants and the firms owning them can meet their net-zero decarbonization goals. The TGES America model eliminates the capital expenditure and helps to level operating expenses that its customers would otherwise incur in owning and maintaining those facilities themselves while simplifying plant budgeting and planning. It also allows plant management to focus more on meeting production goals and delivery commitments. The Challenge | Introducing a state-of-the-art and reliable control system early to enhance customer satisfaction One TGES America customer is a specialty materials manufacturer. The plant’s CUP provides steam, compressed air, chilled water, deionized water and cooling water, all of which are required by several production lines for their many sophisticated and carefully calibrated processes that ensure maximum efficiency and yield. When TGES America took on responsibility for the plant’s CUP several years ago via a long-term lease, it became apparent that the existing control system needed to be upgraded to ensure greater stability. “ We quickly realized upgrading the system was necessary to consistently meet our customer's requirements, ” says TGES America CEO Konosuke Usui.” TGES America decided to develop and deploy a more advanced and highly reliable industrial control system (ICS). Moreover, given that CUP energy service agreements typically span 20 to 30 years, the ICS needed to be future-proofed for such a long lifecycle and be upgradeable with the latest technologies over that time. The Solution | Engage an expert partner to design, engineer, and install fully modern and ultra-reliable systems for CUP controls and monitoring In 2019, TGES America began searching for solution providers. Familiar with Siemens' reputation for high-quality and reliable automation and controls, TGES America's project team used the Siemens Partner Finder to shortlist potential system integrators. After carefully evaluating five candidates, TGES America's project team chose aeSolutions, a 120-employee systems integrator based in Greenville, South Carolina, with offices in Houston and Anchorage. As a certified Siemens Solution Partner, the company specializes in solving extreme industrial engineering challenges in process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. “ aeSolutions stood out from the others with their excellent response and superior technical proposal, which made them the clear choice for assisting us in the critical overhaul of our customer’s CUP facilities, ” Usui says. “ We also knew we could trust the highly integrated Siemens technologies included in aeSolutions’ proposal. ” Solution Designed - Cold Cutover Planned In December 2020, TGES America‘s Project team awarded aeSolutions an initial contract to allow for preliminary engineering and for the early purchase of equipment due to the global pandemic extending supply chain deliveries. “ At that time, the project had a completion target of March 2022, ” aeSolutions CEO Ken O’Malley recalls. “ The production facility was idle due to the pandemic, so the project’s execution plan would allow for an extended cold cutover to the new control system. ” His engineering team worked closely with TGES America’s Project team to develop a comprehensive ICS solution consisting of these Siemens components drawn from the Totally Integrated Automation (TIA) portfolio: SIMATIC S7-1500H Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs) , which provides the CUP with high availability and built-in redundancy via a backup CPU synchronized with the primary CPU to ensure continued operation with no data loss. It also features built-in diagnostics with highly secure remote accessibility from anywhere at anytime by any web-enabled device. SIMATIC ET 200SP Distributed IO , a scalable and highly flexible system for connecting process signals to the S7-1500H PLC over high-speed PROFINET. SCALANCE Layer 2 Managed Switches , for securely segmenting the plant network that supports the CUP’s many physical utilities and their production process- enabling functions. WinCC Runtime Professional V17 , a PC-based operator control and monitoring system for visualization and operation of all the CUP’s processes, production sequences, and connected machines across the plant. SCALANCE Industrial Ethernet Security Appliance , for secure remote access to the control LAN. The Siemens TIA Portal was used to program the CUP’s control system as well as its WinCC Professional HMI. The TIA Portal’s intuitive, all-in-one software engineering platform with a drag-and-drop interface unifies control programming, HMI visualization development, and parameter settings. “ With TIA Portal, our engineers saved time and delivered higher quality with less effort versus other ICS platforms because of the totally integrated architecture, ” O’Malley says. Schedule Accelerated by Four Months - Hot Cutover Required In March 2021, Usui recalls, the customer told TGES America that the global pandemic was easing and that there was a change in the customer's production schedule, meaning the plant would be ramping up to full production four months earlier than originally planned. “ So, after considering how much our project team could pull in the various engineering, procurement, testing, and commissioning tasks involved, we agreed to a new target completion date, ” he says. But this accelerated timeline didn’t come without execution risks, according to O’Malley. “ Because the production facility’s ramp-up would be well underway when the new date for the new control system cutover would happen, we’d have to perform it hot without interrupting the plant’s utilities supply to production, ” he says. “ Clearly, doing this would be no small feat. ” In such challenging circumstances, TGES America project manager Atsushi Iwamoto and aeSolutions project manager Shane Kjergaard worked closely together, repeatedly revising the project plan and tirelessly coordinating with stakeholders to ensure the project stayed on schedule. As a result of the TGES America and aeSolutions teams coming together as one team, they were able to achieve completion on the revised schedule. In addition, aeSolutions’ engineering team is very experienced completing complex hot cutovers, for example, the hot relocation of a large control room in the Artic for one of the world’s largest natural gas processing plants. “ In the end, we managed a complex, step-by-step hot cutover plan of the control system without interrupting the plant’s utilities supply, ” O’Malley says. “ The easy Siemens component integration and TIA Portal programming took systems integration off the critical path so we could focus on executing the hot cutover. ” For that, aeSolutions developed an interim hybrid control architecture using the site’s existing Modbus TCP/IP network to share signals between the old system and the new Siemens ICS. “ Think back to hard-wired signal switches, ” he explains. “ As we moved the signal wires from the old system to the new Siemens ICS, the old system still had access to those signals via Modbus. Once most of the signals for a given system had been moved over to the Siemens system, we switched master control for that system over to the Siemens ICS. It was a tightly coordinated, high-stakes dance with operations, construction, and engineering all working together. ” Results | Improved Margins and a Repeatable Reference Model for TGES America — With Reliable Plant Utilities and Customer Trust Restored Now, Usui reports the Siemens ICS is working reliably and to specification. TGES America has improved efficiency and successfully enhanced the operational stability of the plant. “ Our customer is satisfied, so we are quite satisfied. ” he says. “ Our successful ICS solution provides us with a repeatable reference model for other customers. And it’s one we can quickly configure to their specifications while saving custom engineering time and costs. ” Usui adds ,“ The Siemens PLC’s built-in diagnostics enable onsite operators to quickly troubleshoot and remedy issues before they impact production. And if an escalation is required, aeSolutions or Siemens experts can remotely access the system using the Siemens SCALANCE security appliance with TIA Portal to do the troubleshooting and remediation themselves, minimizing downtime. ” Future-Proofed for Decades to Come What’s more, the advanced Siemens technologies inside the ICS provide much greater operational visibility, so TGES America can conduct condition monitoring for preventive and even predictive maintenance of plant facilities. “ As we expand our TGES America customer base, we can extend this visibility and monitoring across all of our deployments to manage them as a fleet and keep watch on each site’s performance, ” Usui says. TGES America and aeSolutions are also discussing whether they can pursue even greater stability by introducing new technologies. “ For example, the new AI tools coming available for our customers today are exciting, such as Siemens S7-1500 TM NPU module that operates using a trained neural system, ” says O’Malley. “ It’s literally a plug-and-play upgrade and, with it, the CUP’s different utility provisioning systems can read their own sensor data, intelligently interpret performance variations and anomalies, then respond flexibly and automatically to situations that used to require manual intervention, reducing downtime and increasing availability. ” This kind of Siemens technology advancement gives Usui the confidence to know that when TGES America deploys a control system, its lifecycle will span the long-term leases that are the basis of the TGES America business model. “ At the same time, we expect our strategic partnership with aeSolutions and their expertise, experience, and tight relationship with Siemens will help us continue to prosper and help our customers be successful for many decades to come, ” he says.

aeSolutions’ next generation of fire and gas alarm and control solutions for the industrial market has arrived. The FGS 5000 combines the required functionality into a Rockwell control logix control platform. The FGS 5000 was designed to give customers a reliable, easy-to-maintain fire and gas platform that instrument techs familiar with the Rockwell control system platform can maintain and troubleshoot. The system is designed to be highly scalable, from small 50 I/O systems up to systems with 500+ I/O. A critical component of the FGS 5000 is an FM Approved secondary power supply system consisting of a charger panel and an associated self-contained battery system. To support system design, aeSolutions has developed an FM Approved battery sizing tool which confirms the battery system design based on the specific requirements of each application. By using the same hardware/software platform as end users using Rockwell BPCS systems and infrastructure, the FGS 5000 can be integrated into the entire plant system solution. It offers the advantages of common HMIs, spare parts, training, engineering/configuration tools, maintenance, and procedures to save installed and lifecycle costs dramatically. The aeSolutions FM Approved family of Fire & Gas systems are designed to the latest standards using our first-hand industry experience. Gas Monitoring & Control The FGS 5000 has also been FM Approved to be in conformance with FM Approval’s Combustible Gas Standard 6320, Toxic Gas Detection Standard 6340 and ANSI/ISA 12.13.01 Performance Requirements for Combustible Gas Detectors standard. Fire System Monitoring & Control The FGS 5000 has been FM Approved to be in conformance with the requirements of NFPA 72 and FM 3010 standard for fire alarming and mitigation control. The system has approval for either simplex or redundant processors, a variety of I/O configurations, including remote I/O, and a battery back-up/charger subsystem. Features The FGS 5000 Fire & Gas System is a pre-engineered, pre-configured, and pre-packaged system that is suitable for a wide variety of applications and is available as a turnkey solution. A complete turnkey Fire & Gas System that is FM Approved to be compliant with NFPA 72 (2022 Edition) and FM 3010 standard for both fire and gas monitoring in the same PLC Approved for combination system I/O – Can be used to control HVAC Developed around the Rockwell ControlLogix® Series PLC platform Supports simplex I/O and either simplex or redundant processors: offers a remote I/O option Uses Rockwell Flex5000 I/O cards The system includes interface capability to a wide variety of sensors and final control elements with fully supervised circuits (IDC, NAC, FSF, and SDC) Communication to control systems via Industrial Ethernet, hardwired I/O, or Modbus FGS 5000 includes a complete battery backup system with charger No on-site programming required The FGS 5000 has 2 operator interface options: 12” Panelview Plus, or Industrial PC’s running RS-View Field Device Options Manual pull stations Heat & smoke detectors Temperature rate-of-rise sensors Toxic gas detectors Combustible gas detectors Suppression subsystems Local alarm horn / beacon Environmental protection Host communication capability IR fire detectors Multi-spectrum fire detectors Addressable detectors from Apollo System Integration Options Our qualified engineers apply years of expertise to provide: A complete single-source turnkey solution for the optimum FGS 5000 solution Detector placement and modeling services Complete field construction package Implementation of all phases of design, fabrication, configuration, and documentation System verification and validation including factory acceptance, integration, and client acceptance testing Training at both the engineering and technician levels Commissioning and startup support System Specifications Processor Rockwell ControlLogix® 5580 Series with redundant processor option I/O Both analog and discrete supervised circuits and remote I/O option Inputs/Outputs Application-dependent Power Supply Options PS1400-20-252: 20 Amp 24VDC Output Nominal; 115/230 VAC Input/252 amp Hour Battery Backup. PS1400-50-600: 50 Amp 24VDC Output Nominal; 115/230 VAC Input/600 Amp Hour Battery Backup. PS1400-100-1200: 100 Amp 24VDC Output Nominal; 115/230 VAC Input/1200 Amp Hour Battery Backup. PS1400- 150-1800: 150 Amp 24VDC Output Nominal; 208/240/480 VAC Input/1800 amp hour battery set. Optional Rack assembly to stack charger and battery set. Temperature Operating: 0 to 50 Deg C. Storage: -40 to 60 Deg C Humidity Operating: 0 to 95% non-condensing Cabinet Nema 4, 4X, 12, powder coated or stainless steel; size is application-dependent Area Class General purpose or Class I Div 2 Weight Application-dependent Certifications FM Approved for compliance with NFPA 72 and FM 3010 for both Fire & Gas; FM Approval’s Combustible Gas Standard 6320, Toxic Gas Detection Standard 6340 and ANSI/ISA 12.13.01 Performance Requirements for Combustible Gas Detectors standard. Initiating Device Circuits Class A & B for discrete dry contact IDCs; Class B for Analog IDCs Notification Appliance Circuits Class B

Introduction | Control System Migration | Part 4 November 2024 — by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE — Give yourself a pat on the back, you’ve successfully navigated the tasks of providing procurement specification and selecting a vendor for your control system migration project . In part four of this series , we will be exploring scope, schedule, and budget. These elements form the “triple constraint” or what is sometimes referred to as the “three-headed monster” of control system migration project management — or any project, for that matter . The success of a migration project depends on balancing these constraints, with trade-offs required to meet objectives while addressing stakeholder needs, industry mandates, and operational realities. Phased Project Execution and Trade-offs Ideally, control system migrations follow a phased approach — starting with conceptual and preliminary design, moving through detailed design, and ending in execution. However, phases do not always flow sequentially, and overlapping activities are common, a phenomenon that makes a project more challenging. At the heart of control system projects lies the negotiation between scope, schedule, and budget. These three variables shape the project from inception to completion. Stakeholders, including project sponsors, operations teams, and users, bring different priorities to the table — requiring alignment to strike the right balance. For example, a project's scope must align with user requirements while staying within budget and schedule constraints. While many projects have some flexibility for scope, budget and schedule trade-offs, few projects are entirely unconstrained. Rare exceptions exist — such as the rapid construction of the Pentagon during World War II or the development of the atomic bomb — where scope and schedule were paramount, and budget was comparatively unlimited. However, most control system migrations are not afforded a constraint waiver, making the balancing act of scope, schedule, and budget a constant challenge. The Importance of Schedule and Outage Management In many control system migration initiatives, the project schedule is non-negotiable. Certain projects — such as those in the energy sector — are driven by government regulations (like Title V permitting ) or market demands, forcing strict adherence to timelines. Refinery turnarounds are a prime example: These large-scale maintenance events may only occur every 10 years, and once scheduled, the dates cannot shift. The high cost of shutting down operations for a refinery or chemical plant places immense pressure on teams to execute migrations efficiently within the set outage window. Outage durations and deadlines are major factors influencing both project scope and budget. Teams must prepare thoroughly to avoid overruns, as missing an outage window could result in costly delays. Planning and execution are equally critical during cutover phases when legacy systems are replaced with new ones, requiring seamless transitions within tight timeframes. Stakeholder Engagement and Balancing Constraints Engaging stakeholders early in the migration process is essential to align expectations around scope, schedule, and budget. By understanding their priorities — whether cost control, quality, or speed — project teams can manage trade-offs effectively. For example, a project may prioritize scope and quality, leaving budget as a secondary concern. However, as the old project management adage goes: “ You can have two of the three—scope, schedule, or budget—but the third must remain flexible .” A common question when setting priorities is whether quality fits within scope. In control system migrations, quality is considered a given. If the migration is poorly executed, operational issues will surface immediately, posing significant risks to production. Based on this, ensuring quality throughout the process is non-negotiable, even if it means adjusting schedule or budget constraints. Whether the new control system is ultimately a “Chevrolet”, or a “Cadillac” is a scope question, the answer to which depends on user requirements. However, whether a Chevy or a Caddy, the solution must be of high quality.    Scope — V-Model Systems Engineering The V-Model Systems Engineering approach is a widely recognized and robust framework, that is particularly valuable in managing project scope within control system migrations. Originating from the systems engineering discipline, the V-Model has been used extensively by industries such as process control and process safety and is a standard practice in high-stakes environments like the Department of Defense (DoD). The DoD has adopted the V-Model as a foundational approach for all acquisition systems, owing to its reliability and flexibility across various complex systems. The V-Model’s structured yet adaptable framework makes it an ideal tool for managing the many layers of control system migrations, where scope must be clearly defined and rigorously adhered to. The model is not only a theoretical construct but also integrated into practical standards like the IEC 61511 standard for Safety Instrumented Systems, demonstrating its alignment with the development and delivery of safety-critical industrial automation systems. Understanding the V-Model Structure   Image Source   The V-Model is visually represented as a “V” shape, with each side denoting specific phases of a project lifecycle. Starting from the upper left, the model begins with conceptualization and planning stages, where project requirements are established. These initial steps serve as the foundation for the entire project, ensuring clarity in objectives and design specifications. As the project progresses down the left side of the “V,” each phase deepens the project’s detail, moving through stages such as system architecture, preliminary design, and detailed design. At the bottom of the “V,” the project reaches the development and integration phase, where the designed systems are constructed and configured. The right side of the “V” begins with the validation and verification stages, where each element developed is thoroughly tested and validated against the original requirements set out in the project’s conceptual phase. This structured approach provides a clear pathway from inception to completion, ensuring that each component of the control system migration aligns with the initial scope and quality expectations. An important element of the “V” is that systems engineering does not end after system commissioning but should continue throughout the life of the asset to ensure upgrades and changes are also managed in a systematic manner. Benefits of the V-Model in Control System Migrations The V-Model’s stepwise progression is highly beneficial in control system migrations, where maintaining scope integrity is crucial. Each phase builds upon the last, allowing for consistent alignment with project objectives. The systematic approach helps minimize scope creep —  a common risk in complex migrations — and ensures that each requirement is tracked through development to final validation. One of the unique strengths of the V-Model is its emphasis on early-stage requirements. By investing time in clearly defining the project’s scope and requirements at the outset, teams can better manage expectations, budgets, and timelines. This is particularly valuable in environments where safety and reliability are critical, as any deviation from the intended design could result in costly or even hazardous outcomes. Scope — Requirements Document The Requirements Document is a foundational component in any control system migration, defining what the project must achieve and setting the framework for success. At the outset, the project team collaborates with stakeholders to clearly define the project’s objectives, specifications, and performance standards. This process ensures alignment around the key questions: What are we trying to accomplish?  and What are the essential requirements? In a control system migration, whether a Basic Process Control System (BPCS) or Safety Instrumented System  (SIS), a requirements document addresses the unique demands of replacing outdated and unsupported systems. As technology evolves, older systems eventually become unsupported, are difficult to maintain, lack operational reliability and flexibility, and no longer meet the organization’s needs. Establishing clear, detailed requirements is imperative in ensuring the new control system addresses these challenges effectively. Key Elements in Requirements Documentation The requirements document must integrate inputs from multiple entities involved in the control system’s operation and maintenance: Physical Environment Requirements :  This includes details about the physical assets the control system connects to, such as motors, pumps, compressors, tanks, and valves. Understanding the full scope of the machinery and processes the control system controls is crucial for designing a system that operates safely and effectively. User Requirements : Operators are on the front lines of system interaction, making user-friendly interfaces critical. The requirements document specifies Human-Machine Interface  (HMI) design, alarm management, and process visualization needs, ensuring that operators can navigate the system efficiently and without undue stress. Maintenance and Troubleshooting Requirements :  Maintenance teams need access to troubleshooting tools and systems capable of proactive fault detection. Requirements for system diagnostics, error reporting, and asset management tools (such as those using HART communication protocols ) are outlined to streamline ongoing maintenance. Advanced Control and Optimization :  For organizations aiming to optimize quality and profitability, the requirements document includes specifications for advanced applications and optimization tools. These capabilities allow for efficient control of complex processes and help meet business objectives. Cybersecurity and IT Requirements :  IT teams and cybersecurity stakeholders provide input on access control, remote troubleshooting capabilities, and integration with broader IT systems. This is especially important in cases where engineers or maintenance personnel may need secure, remote access to the control system. Business and Management Requirements :  Business leaders often have specific visibility requirements, allowing them to monitor production and other metrics from a management perspective. The requirements document captures these needs, balancing operational transparency with security concerns. The Systems Engineering V-Model for Requirements Documentation The Systems Engineering V-Model discussed earlier is also frequently applied to structuring the process of defining, refining, and verifying requirements documentation. During the initial FEL ( Front-End Loading ) phases, the project team identifies high-level requirements, involving potential vendors, systems integrators, and Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) to validate early concepts. As the project progresses, requirements are broken down into more specific design elements, such as Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams (P&IDs), system architecture diagrams, and detailed hardware and software specifications. This phase culminates in a comprehensive set of design deliverables, including finalized drawings and specifications. As the project moves from design into implementation, the V-Model allows teams to check each aspect of the implementation against the original requirements, ensuring that the system meets expectations through validation and verification steps. Ongoing Maintenance and Adaptation Control system migrations do not end with commissioning. Modern control systems are increasingly software-dependent, relying on regular updates and security patches for sustained performance. As part of the requirements documentation, teams establish processes for managing updates and maintaining alignment with evolving cybersecurity standards. These “ living ” documents serve as references for future maintenance, ensuring the control system remains functional, secure, and aligned with operational needs well into the future.   Scope — Work Breakdown Schedule (WBS) A Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is fundamental to the scope definition process in control system migrations, as they establish a clear framework for planning, estimating, and executing the project. The WBS divides a project into smaller, manageable parts, facilitating clearer communication, better cost control, and improved resource allocation. At its core, a Work Breakdown Schedule helps the team “ eat the elephant one bite at a time ,” breaking down complex tasks into structured and measurable components. Developing the Work Breakdown Structure In a WBS, the project is defined at the highest level and progressively divided into subprojects, sub-phases, and tasks. The process typically starts with defining the overarching goal — whether that’s replacing outdated control systems, implementing new safety standards, or optimizing performance. From there, the WBS is broken down into manageable sections, with each phase building on the previous ones. The ultimate goal is to create small enough tasks that allow for accurate estimation and efficient management. A comprehensive WBS should be developed early in the control system migration project, ideally before the schedule is finalized. Breaking down the project into smaller components enables teams to estimate durations and resources for each element more accurately. This is especially valuable in complex control system migrations, where precise scheduling is a must-have to minimize operational disruptions. Owner-Level and Vendor/Contractor-Level WBS In many projects, including government and large-scale industrial migrations, the WBS is divided into two levels: Owner-Level WBS : The project owner (often the client or the entity funding the project) typically defines the first few levels of the WBS. This includes outlining the major phases, primary objectives, and key deliverables. For instance, in government contracts, the owner might specify the first two levels of the WBS, setting the foundational structure of the project without delving into granular details. Vendor/Contractor-Level WBS : Contractors or vendors are then responsible for developing the WBS beyond the initial levels specified by the owner. They add the finer details needed for execution, filling in tasks, subtasks, and resource assignments to meet the owner’s requirements. This approach empowers contractors to bring their expertise to the project, structuring their work to align with the project goals and optimizing resource allocation. This dual-level WBS structure allows owners to set clear expectations while giving vendors the flexibility to plan and execute in a way that leverages their strengths. It’s a common practice to help ensure a balanced approach where high-level objectives are set by the owner, and detailed planning is conducted by those executing the work. Benefits of a Well-Defined WBS A well-defined WBS simplifies schedule and budget development by enabling a “ bottom-up ” approach to project planning and execution. It provides a structured method for estimating time and resources, making it easier to assign costs accurately and avoid budget overruns. By breaking the project down into smaller parts, the WBS helps identify risks early, setting the stage for more effective project management. In the context of control system migrations, where tasks may vary in complexity and dependencies, a robust WBS can help mitigate scheduling challenges. Estimating timeframes for smaller tasks is inherently easier than for large, undefined tasks, leading to a more realistic and achievable schedule. Additionally, as the project progresses, the WBS serves as a roadmap, enabling the project team to track progress, adjust resources as needed, and ensure each phase aligns with the defined scope. For owners and contractors alike, a well-defined WBS not only clarifies project expectations but also enhances the likelihood of completing the migration on time and within budget.   Schedule — Resource-Loaded with Logic Creating a resource-loaded schedule with logic is a vital step in control system migrations, allowing project teams to allocate resources efficiently while ensuring all tasks follow a logical sequence. Once the scope is established, and the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is outlined, these elements provide the foundation for developing a detailed, executable schedule. By defining what needs to be done at a granular level, teams can move forward with estimating timelines and applying resources in a structured manner. Building the Schedule with Logical Sequencing A well-crafted schedule isn’t just a list of tasks — it is a sequence of events governed by logic. In this context, logic refers to the relationships and dependencies between tasks, dictating what must happen in a specific order and what can happen concurrently. This logical structure ensures that each activity aligns with the project's overall timeline, minimizing delays and optimizing efficiency. For example, certain tasks may need to finish before others can start, while some can proceed simultaneously, depending on resource availability and task dependencies. Using the WBS, each task in the schedule can be broken down into smaller sections, often organized in a Gantt chart format. The WBS sections align directly with the schedule, allowing for a smooth transition from scope definition to scheduling. As the project progresses from conceptual design (FEL 1) through preliminary (FEL 2) and detailed design stages (FEL 3), the schedule becomes increasingly specific. By the time the project reaches the execute stage, the schedule should be thoroughly developed, reflecting both the scope and WBS in a detailed, logical format. Resource Loading and Effort Estimation Resource loading is the process of assigning human resources, materials, and equipment to each task based on effort estimates. This step involves calculating the actual effort hours needed for each task, allowing the project manager to allocate the appropriate resources at the right times. Effort estimates are based on the complexity of the work, skill requirements, and task duration. A resource-loaded schedule helps ensure that project teams are neither overburdened nor underutilized, helping to keep the project on track and within budget. The resource-loaded schedule allows project managers to see where resources may be constrained or where adjustments might be needed. By integrating resource availability with task dependencies, the team can make informed decisions on scheduling adjustments, such as reallocating personnel or shifting task start dates. This level of planning is imperative in large-scale control system migrations, where resource constraints could lead to significant delays. The Value of Progressive Detailing The level of detail in the schedule should grow as the project advances. Early in the project, schedules are often high-level, with broader phases outlined in sequence. As the project reaches subsequent stages, each phase becomes more defined. By the time the project is ready for funding approval at the execute stage, the schedule should be highly detailed, providing a clear roadmap for completion. A well-detailed, resource-loaded schedule with logical sequencing is essential for obtaining project funding. Investors and stakeholders need confidence in the project’s timeline and feasibility, and a thoroughly prepared schedule demonstrates both preparedness and reliability. The more specific the schedule at this stage, the better equipped the team will be to manage the project’s complexities during execution.   Schedule — Critical Path The Critical Path is a fundamental concept in control system migration project scheduling. It represents the longest sequence of dependent tasks that must be completed for the project to reach its end date. In essence, the critical path is “ the longest pole in the tent ” — the chain of tasks that dictates the overall project duration. Identifying the Critical Path Identifying the critical path involves mapping out the sequence of tasks and understanding their dependencies. Each task on the critical path has no leeway for delay, as any delay in these tasks will directly impact the project’s completion date. Thus, accurately identifying this sequence early in the planning phase is essential, and a resource-loaded schedule can help visualize these dependencies and constraints. A resource-loaded schedule aligns resources with each task, allowing teams to see how resource availability impacts the critical path. By continuously managing to this path, project managers can ensure that resources are allocated to high-priority tasks, keeping the project on track. Managing the Critical Path Once identified, the critical path must be actively managed throughout the project. It’s common for the critical path to evolve as the project progresses — some tasks may be optimized, resources may be reallocated, or unforeseen issues may necessitate changes in task sequencing. For example, a task initially identified as critical “ subtask A ” might later be optimized, shifting the critical path to another task “ subtask D ”. This shifting nature requires a proactive approach to critical path management, with regular reviews to ensure the path remains accurate. Adjustments should be made as necessary to reflect any changes in the sequence or duration of tasks. By monitoring the critical path, teams can quickly adapt to changes and avoid potential delays. Ultimately, the critical path is the backbone of a control system migration project’s schedule. When managed well, the critical path provides a clear roadmap for prioritizing resources and activities to keep the project on track.   Schedule — Slip In any control system migration project, project managers should plan for schedule slip. Slip refers to the allowance for unexpected delays or setbacks that may impact the project timeline. Recognizing that projects are executed by human beings and subject to real-world unpredictability, building in a buffer for slip is a practical and necessary component of scheduling. Why Allow for Schedule Slip? Projects are seldom immune to delays. Factors such as natural disasters, world events, and unforeseen technical challenges can disrupt even the most meticulously planned schedules. By planning for possible delays, teams can set realistic expectations with stakeholders and avoid the need for crisis management when things don’t go as planned. A well-designed schedule with built-in slip is a reflection of common sense and practical risk management. This buffer provides the flexibility needed to adapt to changes without jeopardizing the overall project timeline. It allows project managers to respond to issues effectively, keeping the project on track while managing unforeseen obstacles. Managing Slip in Schedule Development Managing slip requires a careful balance between optimism and realism. Too little allowance for slip may result in unnecessary pressure on resources, increasing the risk of errors and burnout. Conversely, too much allowance may inflate the schedule, impacting cost and resource allocation. The goal is to include just enough flexibility to accommodate probable delays without compromising efficiency. In the context of control system migrations, schedule slip is especially important. These projects often involve complex integrations, interdependent systems, and critical operations. Allowing for slip in the schedule ensures that these complexities are managed without excessive risk of delay, helping the project team deliver a successful migration within a reasonable timeframe. A realistic approach to slip allows for smoother project execution, reducing the impact of setbacks and fostering a more resilient project plan.   Budget — Parametric, Analogous, & Bottom-Up Estimating As you might imagine, budget is an important component when planning a control system migration. Determining the funds required to complete the project is essential to ensure that resources are allocated effectively and that project stakeholders have realistic cost expectations. However, establishing an accurate budget can be challenging, particularly if cost estimates are provided too early in the process without sufficient data or analysis. The following budgeting techniques — Parametric Estimating, Analogous Estimating, and Bottom-Up Estimating — offer different methods to approach budgeting based on the project’s phase and the level of detail available.   Parametric Estimating Parametric estimating is commonly used in the early phases of project development when only high-level information is available. This technique relies on statistical relationships between historical data and other variables, allowing teams to estimate costs based on a unit of measure. For example, building a control system for a manufacturing plant might be estimated based on a cost per Input/Output (I/O) point or cost per square foot. Parametric estimates can vary significantly depending on the type of facility and the complexity of the control logic. For instance, while a widget manufacturing plant may have relatively simple I/O points, a chemical processing plant with advanced controls would require a more sophisticated (and thus more costly) system. Although parametric estimates are useful, they should be used cautiously, as variations in project scope or industry standards can impact the accuracy of these estimates. Unit cost estimating is a similar approach to parametric estimating, where costs are determined based on the cost per unit (e.g., per foot, per ton) of a particular item. This technique is often applied when more specific information about project components is available. In control system migrations, unit cost estimating might apply to components like stainless steel piping or wiring, providing a straightforward calculation for materials or parts with standard unit costs. Unit cost estimating is particularly useful for elements that have consistent pricing structures, allowing project teams to forecast material costs with a fair degree of accuracy. Like parametric estimating, this approach is more reliable when sufficient historical data exists, enabling comparisons across similar projects or components. Analogous Estimating Analogous estimating is another common technique used in the early stages of control system project budgeting. This method relies on historical data from similar past projects to estimate the costs of a new project. For instance, if a similar control system migration was completed five years ago, or if a nearly identical project was executed at another facility a year prior, those projects can serve as benchmarks for the current estimate. Analogous estimating allows teams to leverage known data, adjusting for differences in scope, inflation, or other variables, to create a rough cost estimate without extensive upfront details. While it may not provide the level of accuracy achieved through bottom-up estimating, analogous estimating is a practical tool for generating early budget figures and can be refined as more specific project information becomes available. Bottom-Up Estimating Bottom-up estimating is the most detailed and precise budgeting method, typically applied in the final design phases, such as the FEL 3. By this point, the project team has completed a detailed Work Breakdown Structure and can estimate costs for each subtask with higher accuracy. Bottom-up estimating involves calculating the cost of each component or task individually and then summing them to derive the total project cost. This technique requires a comprehensive understanding of the project’s scope, schedule, and resource requirements, making it best suited for later stages when detailed design and planning are complete. Although time-consuming, bottom-up estimating is highly accurate, as it accounts for specific project needs and is based on actual data from the project’s planning stages. Each of these budgeting techniques serves a unique purpose at different stages of project development. Parametric and Analogous estimating are effective tools in the early stages when only high-level information is available, while bottom-up estimating provides a more precise calculation as the project reaches maturity. By employing the appropriate technique at each stage, project teams can ensure that budget estimates evolve alongside the project, aligning with the increasing specificity of scope and design.   Budget — Analyzing the Quality of Your Budget Once a budget has been established for your control system migration, you’ll want to evaluate its quality. Analyzing the quality of a budget involves assessing whether the cost estimate is optimistic, pessimistic, or realistically positioned within the range of expected expenses. This process allows project managers to ensure that the budget is grounded in reality and aligned with project risks. Contingency and Reserve Planning One element of budget analysis is establishing a contingency amount. Contingency planning accounts for known risks that might affect costs, such as potential delays or changes in scope. Project teams can use various methods to determine contingency amounts, including expert opinion or quantitative approaches like Monte Carlo analysis . By calculating an appropriate contingency, the project team provides a buffer for foreseeable risks, adding a layer of resilience to the budget. In addition to contingency planning, projects should include a management reserve — a fund set aside at the discretion of the project manager to cover unforeseen issues. Unlike contingency, which addresses specific identified risks, the management reserve handles unexpected, “ unknown unknowns ” that may arise. This reserve allows project managers to navigate unanticipated challenges without immediately compromising the budget. Assessing Budget Confidence Analyzing budget quality also involves reflecting on the methodology used to develop cost estimates. Project teams should consider whether their cost elements are based on realistic assumptions and whether they have allocated resources prudently. By evaluating each component of the budget and ensuring it aligns with project goals and constraints, teams can increase their confidence in the budget’s accuracy. Before submitting the budget for final funding, it’s important to undergo this self-assessment. This evaluation helps in identifying any potential gaps and ensures that the budget reflects all known variables and has adequate provisions for managing uncertainty. Moving Forward with an Approved Budget Once the budget has been thoroughly analyzed and approved, the project is equipped with a solid financial plan. At this point, the project should also have a resource-loaded schedule, a clear critical path, built-in allowances for schedule slip, and structured reserve management. These elements together form a comprehensive project plan, ready for execution. As the project progresses, maintaining control over scope, schedule, and budget is crucial. Any project that begins with delays or budget overruns is challenging to recover, making it essential to start on solid ground. Proactively addressing risks early increases the chances of successful project completion and mitigates the impact of any adverse events that might arise.   Project Controls — In-House or Third-Party? Project controls are extremely important for the success of any control system migration. They provide the structure and oversight necessary to manage risks, monitor progress, and ensure that the project remains on schedule and within budget. The decision to handle project controls in-house or to engage a third-party firm depends on factors like organizational culture, project complexity, and available resources. In-House Project Controls Organizations with the necessary skills and resources may choose to manage project controls internally. This approach allows the project manager or other team members to oversee scheduling, estimation, and physical progress. An in-house team can solicit feedback directly from the design, procurement, and construction teams, collating data to update progress against the baseline. In-house project controls require a dedicated team with the ability to monitor percent completions, maintain schedules, and adjust resources as needed. However, many organizations today operate with lean staffing, focusing primarily on operational roles rather than project-specific capabilities. This limitation can impact their ability to execute comprehensive project controls effectively. Third-Party Project Controls When internal resources are insufficient, engaging a third-party project controls firm can be a strategic choice. Specialized firms focus solely on project controls, often bringing a high level of expertise and efficiency. Some third-party firms specialize in control systems, offering insights tailored to the needs of complex control system migrations. Larger engineering firms may also provide project controls services, supported by dedicated departments with robust processes and systems. Outsourcing project controls can offer a level of sophistication and objectivity that may be challenging to maintain in-house, especially for smaller organizations. These smaller facilities may lack the resources or expertise required for project controls and can benefit significantly from external support. Risk Management and Decision-Making Whether in-house or outsourced, project controls are fundamentally about risk management. They provide a framework to assess if the project is on track, identify potential delays, and highlight budget overruns. Having accurate and timely project controls data allows organizations to address issues proactively, minimizing disruptions and maintaining project momentum. Project controls serve as an early warning system, enabling project managers to intervene before small issues become major setbacks. They answer the key questions: Are we ahead or behind schedule? Are we within budget? Are we meeting quality standards?  This transparency is invaluable in ensuring that the project stays aligned with organizational goals. Project Controls in Procurement and Vendor Management When selecting vendors, systems integrators, or OEMs for a control system migration, it’s important to consider their project controls capabilities. Any vendor contributing to the project’s scope should be able to demonstrate project controls skills, providing regular reports on progress, costs, and quality metrics. This requirement applies even to subcontractors like electrical contractors, who may manage specific project segments but still impact overall timelines and budget. In larger companies, project controls are often standardized across departments, ensuring consistency in execution. Smaller organizations, however, may need to assess whether outsourcing these skills can provide the necessary structure to keep projects on track. Regardless of the approach, project controls are indispensable for managing scope, schedule, and budget in control system migrations, providing the transparency needed to ensure a successful outcome.   The Takeaway Control system migrations are complex projects that require a careful balancing of scope, schedule, and budget — the three primary constraints that govern project success. This fourth installment in our series has explored the essential frameworks, methodologies, and tools that can help manage these constraints effectively, from defining scope using the V-Model Systems Engineering approach to managing project controls in-house or through a third-party provider. Moving Forward with Confidence Control system migrations demand precision, foresight, and flexibility. By embracing the methods discussed in this series — from structured planning to diligent budgeting and project controls — organizations can enhance their capacity to deliver successful migrations that meet performance, safety, and financial objectives. Be sure to keep an eye out for the fifth installment in our control system migrations series, where we will explore best practices when planning and implementing training after a system migration. More information about aeSolutions' comprehensive DCS/PLC migrations and upgrades capabilities and services.

February 2025 - Learn about best practices for industrial facilities undertaking boiler fuel conversion projects to enhance efficiency and ensure compliance. This article, written by Shahid Saeed of aeSolutions and published in Engineered Systems News , explores the following topics and more: Early Engagement of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs):  Involving experienced professionals at the project's inception ensures practical insights and effective planning. Click here to read the full article in Engineered Systems News Understanding Conversion Drivers:  Recognizing factors such as environmental regulations, economic considerations, and safety concerns that necessitate fuel conversions. Proactive Planning and Risk Assessment:  Conducting early evaluations and structured risk analyses, like Hazard and Operability Studies (HAZOP) and Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA), to identify potential issues and design effective safeguards. Stakeholder Alignment:  Ensuring clear communication and alignment among all parties involved to facilitate smooth project execution. Regulatory Compliance:  Adhering to environmental and safety regulations throughout the conversion process. Continuous Improvement:  Implementing lessons learned and best practices to enhance future projects. Written by Shahid Saeed, CFSE, Senior Principal Specialist at aeSolutions . Read the full article here: 6 Strategies for Boiler Fuel Conversion Projects: How to Maximize Efficiency and Strategic Alignment - Engineered Systems News

Introduction | Control System Migration | Part 5 February 2025 — by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE — Training is a crucial but often overlooked aspect of control system migrations. A well-planned training strategy ensures that operators, maintainers, and engineers can effectively manage and optimize the new system. Rather than being treated as an afterthought, training should be integrated into the project from the outset to facilitate a smooth transition, reduce risks, and maximize efficiency. In part five of our control system migrations series , we explore the primary considerations for training during a system migration, addressing the different needs of various roles, the significance of simulation, location strategies, and optimal timing. Operators vs. Maintainers Organizations vary in size and structure, which means there’s no one size fits all  approach to training requirements. In smaller facilities, a single individual or a small team may be responsible for engineering, maintenance, and IT functions, while larger operations such as refineries and chemical plants, often have dedicated departments that require specialized training. Operators transitioning to a new control system will face numerous changes, even if their previous system was relatively modern. The new system may introduce different human-machine interface  (HMI) graphics, alarm handling, and security protocols, all of which require thorough training. They will also need to familiarize themselves with updated navigation structures, logging in/out procedures, and the enhanced capabilities of the new system. Maintenance personnel, whether in instrumentation, electrical, or general maintenance, must understand the core changes in the control system, including remote I/O systems, ethernet-based field devices, and new diagnostic tools. The potential shift from traditional fuses to electronic fusing and overload protection further necessitates comprehensive training. Engineers responsible for long-term maintenance and system modifications will require in-depth training on new programming languages, control system architecture, and system backup procedures. If the migration involves a transition from Ladder Logic to Function Block Diagram (FBD) or Sequential Function Chart  (SFC) programming, engineers must gain proficiency in these new methods to effectively manage system changes. IT teams also play an essential role in modern control systems. They must be trained in virtualized servers, cybersecurity protocols, and data historian integration. Given the increasing interconnectivity between control and business networks, IT professionals must be prepared for more sophisticated cybersecurity requirements and system failover procedures. Balancing Hardware and Software Training Training strategies should distinguish between hardware and software learning. Maintenance personnel often require hands-on experience mostly, with hardware components, such as controllers, networking equipment, and sensors, to handle troubleshooting and repairs effectively, but some software familiarity training is also valuable for troubleshooting purposes. On the other hand, engineers and IT staff will need to focus primarily on software training covering system configuration, programming, and optimization, but also with enough hardware training to support hardware specification decisions as well as possible implications to operations. Ensuring that the right personnel receive the appropriate training based on their roles is vital for long-term system sustainability. Investing in role-specific training ensures that employees can operate and maintain the new system effectively from day one. The Role of Simulation in Training Simulation-based training provides a risk-free environment for personnel to familiarize themselves with the new control system. By replicating system logic and offering scenario-based learning, simulations enable operators and engineers to develop hands-on experience without disrupting real-world operations. This method is particularly valuable for troubleshooting exercises and emergency response training. While simulation systems tend to be a significant investment, they are especially beneficial for large organizations or multi-site migration programs. Some vendors may offer simulation systems at reduced prices as an incentive to select their platform, making it a worthwhile consideration for long-term training strategies. Lower cost, although likely less realistic, simulation is also possible through the use of a desktop or laptop computer setup with a copy of the new system’s engineering and operating environments, connected to a simulated PLC. On-Site vs. Vendor’s Location Training Determining where training should take place is another decision in the control system migration process. On-site training offers convenience and customization, allowing employees to train on a replica of the actual system furnished by the vendor. However, there is a risk that trainees may be called away for operational emergencies or troubleshooting, disrupting the learning process. Training at the vendor’s location provides access to comprehensive resources and a focused environment. While this approach eliminates workplace distractions, it requires additional travel and accommodation expenses. Some organizations opt for a hybrid model, combining initial training with online training modules, followed by more advanced, in-person sessions to maximize efficiency and cost-effectiveness. Timing: When to Train Each Group The timing of training significantly impacts knowledge retention and system adoption. A structured training sequence ensures that personnel acquire the necessary skills when they need them most. Typically, engineers should be trained earliest in the project lifecycle, as their expertise influences system design and architecture. Maintenance personnel should follow, enabling them to contribute to installation and validation efforts. Operators should receive training last, ensuring their knowledge remains fresh for commissioning and site acceptance testing  (SAT). Additionally, IT teams should undergo cybersecurity and virtualization training before deployment to prepare for system integration and data security measures. The Takeaway | Control System Migrations Training Control system migrations introduce new capabilities but also add complexity. A well-structured training strategy is essential to ensuring that all stakeholders — operators, maintainers, engineers, and IT personnel  — can effectively manage the new system. Training should be planned early to accommodate costs and scheduling. Different roles require distinct training approaches, including hands-on hardware experience, software proficiency, and cybersecurity readiness. Although simulation-based training offers high-value learning opportunities, organizations must weigh its costs and benefits. Training location choices should balance convenience with effectiveness, and the timing of training should align with project phases to maximize retention. The cost of some training may be capitalized, depending on trainee roles and an organization’s interpretation of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. By investing in a structured and well-timed training approach, organizations can ensure a successful transition, improved efficiency, and long-term system reliability.