C-Level Appointments and New Business Units Will Enhance Company Client Services; Set Stage for Projected Growth Greenville, SC – June 26, 2024 – aeSolutions, an applied engineering solutions development and delivery company that assesses industrial process risk and implements risk response plans through critical systems, today announced multiple executive appointments and a new corporate growth structure. Both the executive appointments and the new structure are designed to drive client success and position the company for growth in client services and offerings. “At aeSolutions, the pursuit of client success in tandem with employee development is foundational,” said Ken O’Malley, founder, who is now stepping into the position of CEO. “It’s not enough just to win business today; our long-term success must be built on that foundation. We believe this so strongly that we recently reorganized our corporate structure around our unique client success model. We have an exciting vision of our future, and now we have the leadership and structure to get us there.” Key Personnel Appointments Executive Appointments Ken O’Malley, Chief Executive Officer (CEO): O’Malley started aeSolutions with two partners in 1998 and most recently served as aeSolutions’ president. He has proven to be a leader capable of transitioning from a startup with five employees to a mid-sized consulting and engineering company that has locations in multiple states executing critical projects for international, Fortune 100 clients. Joel Read, Chief Financial Officer (CFO): As aeSolutions’ first CFO and member of the Executive Leadership team, Read leverages his strong history of elevating company performances while navigating through periods of significant change. Read’s previous roles include serving as the president of Executive Interim Management, LLC and as Division CFO, Division Controller and Global HQ Business Planner at IBM Global Services. New Business Units/Branches To streamline and more tightly focus operations at aeSolutions, the company consolidated multiple business units into two: Solutions Development and Solutions Delivery, each overlaying four organizational branches focused on our Sales and Service, our People, Deployment, and our Projects. “With these updates, aeSolutions has created a structure that includes a C-suite to lead our forecasted rapid growth as we head towards our 2027 vision with a strategic plan in mind,” added O’Malley. “Our growth will create an abundance of opportunities for our employees as well, propelling them to increasingly contribute to the success of our clients. This new structure is a win-win-win for our clients, our employees, and our company.” Let’s Go!! About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is an applied engineering solutions development and delivery company that assesses industrial process risk and implements risk response plans through critical systems. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals. Their expertise includes process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. For more information, visit www.aesolutions.com. Media Contact Kari Ritacco RedIron Public Relations for aeSolutions kari@redironpr.com

Process Safety Culture Improvement Blog 3 - by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP, CCPSC This article continues a series of blogs around practical suggestions and methods to drive improvement of the process safety culture at manufacturing facilities. This is a big subject with many facets, and you can look forward to more bite-size potential improvement guidance for your own process safety culture in this series. The Challenges – A Process Safety Road Map In our last blog on strong process safety culture development, I described an organizational structure with a central committee and multiple process safety element committees, with the central committee driving the overall improvement cycle and each element committee interacting with the central committee to drive process safety performance while focusing on individual element performance and improvements. A supporting document for this structure is a process safety roadmap. A roadmap is a systematically written document outlining the process safety elements and systems that apply at your facility, potentially identifying gaps in documentation or system performance that should be improved. It could be a stand-alone document or an appendix to an existing process safety program document. What it needs to be is a living, controlled document that undergoes at least an annual review by SMEs in order to incorporate ongoing process safety enhancements and help establish new improvement goals. A sample roadmap for a portion of the Process Safety Information (PSI) element might look like this: A process safety roadmap of this type ideally includes all the applicable elements and supporting systems from the PSM and/or RMP standards. It can yield a number of benefits well beyond its obvious uses in self-verification and audit activities. It provides a structure for your process safety programs; it can be used in training and orientation activities for newly assigned professionals in technical, supervisory, and management roles; it helps to identify risks due to subpar documentation or compliance issues; it helps identify technical initiatives and goals for future resourcing; and it can even help prioritize improvement initiatives if you include your corporate risk ranking scores or another prioritization method with the potential gaps. Circling back to audit support, a roadmap also provides an easy method to identify that elusive documentation that is always needed before and during the recurring audits required under the PSM and RMP regulations. The development and easy availability of a process safety roadmap for your facility is likely to yield numerous improvement opportunities. An effective roadmap is an invaluable tool for site personnel and particularly to your staff involved in process safety element committees. This tool is also an excellent method of fostering more employee participation, which is undeniably one of the most important pillars of process safety. The Stakes The stakes for a strong process safety culture are higher than ever. A single significant loss of primary containment could have potential impacts ranging from serious on-site and off-site injuries and illnesses, to environmental damage, to company reputational impact, to financial costs from equipment damage, to production loss, and even lawsuits filed against the company. So Now What? Consider the development of a systematic process safety roadmap at your facility. Development and control of a document of this type has benefits well beyond the obvious uses in self-verification and audit activities. Adopting the roadmap structure exactly as shown may not be the best fit for your facility, but variations on it are within the reach of organizations of widely varying sizes and with or without a corporate governing structure. There is much to gain with a strong process safety culture and process safety performance with a roadmap! If you feel that your corporate or internal knowledge of the PSM and/or RMP regulations is not up to the job of developing a roadmap as described, including the identification of improvement opportunities, consider involving one of our expert process safety professionals in the work. aeSolutions staff members have wide experience of both regulations, including compliance methods found to be efficient in the real world at sites like yours. Future blogs in this series on process safety culture will address more aspects of the overall process safety improvement cycle, examine aspects of individual process safety programs, and offer suggestions on both bigger and smaller efforts and methods to drive improvements. Stay tuned for more!

Process Safety Culture Improvement Blog 1 - by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP, CCPSC This article kicks off a series of blogs around practical suggestions and methods to drive improvement of the process safety culture at manufacturing facilities. This is a big subject with many facets, and there is plenty of professional reading available to help with it. I would point out, in particular, a fine work from the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety (Wiley, 2007, 1st edition). This book provides an excellent framework for establishing a systematic approach to process safety program elements. The Challenges – A Systematic Approach to a Strong and Effective Process Safety Culture What do I mean by a systematic approach? Let’s take a look at leadership commitment as an example. In a process safety culture that is systematically improving, senior facility management demonstrates a strong commitment to process safety by visibly prioritizing safety over production targets, allocating resources for process safety activities and initiatives, and actively participating in process safety programs and their improvement. How do you do that in the real world? There are many ways to tackle the topic, but let’s begin with a structured approach. In a strong process safety culture, there will typically be a routine management review process that; assesses the effectiveness of a variety of systems, including process safety programs, feeds improvement opportunities back into the applicable programs, executes improvements, and tests the changes on an ongoing basis: This process is demonstrated as follows: Figure 1: Routine management review process A process safety management cycle of this type takes a close look at process safety trends: near misses and incidents, together with the investigations and completion of actions; assessment of regulatory compliance, including audit results, findings, and follow-up actions; effectiveness of the facility risk management processes, including PHAs, the health of critical safeguard systems, and follow-up actions the health of mechanical integrity at the site; and the adequacy of safety policies and regulations, together with checking on the health of the safety training system; among other potential topics Preparing for and completing a review of this type is likely to yield a numerous corrective actions and continuous improvement opportunities. If this sounds to you a bit like a Plan-Do-Check-Act (PDCA) approach, you are right on target.  Think of the overall systematic approach to effective leadership of process safety and culture as a number of individual program continuous improvement processes running within the larger structure of an overall leadership improvement cycle. The Stakes The stakes for a strong process safety culture are higher than ever.  A single significant loss of primary containment could have potential impacts ranging from serious on-site and off-site injuries and illnesses, to environmental damage, to company reputational impact, to financial costs from equipment damage, to production loss, and even lawsuits filed against the company. So Now What? The upcoming series of blogs on process safety culture will address more aspects of the overall process safety improvement cycle, examine aspects of individual process safety programs, and offer suggestions on both bigger and smaller efforts and methods to drive improvements.  Click here for Part 2: Structuring Your Process Safety Programs

Process Safety Culture Improvement Blog 2 - by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP, CCPSC This article continues a series of blogs around practical suggestions and methods to drive improvement of the process safety culture at manufacturing facilities.  This is a big subject with many facets, and you can look forward to more bite-size potential improvement guidance for your own process safety culture. The Challenges – What is Process Safety Structure and Why Does It Matter? What do I mean by a process safety structure?  I cannot do much better than build on the concept described in a fine work from the Center for Chemical Process Safety (CCPS), Guidelines for Risk Based Process Safety (Wiley, 2007, 1st edition).  This book provides an excellent visualization of process safety program elements: Graphic from https://www.aiche.org/ccps/resources/publications/process-safety-summaries In this structure, there is a foundation of leadership underpinned by foundational blocks of commitment to process safety, understanding and management of process risks, and a learning and improvement cycle driving continuous improvement for all pillars. Each foundational block includes the pillars that support the overall structure, including all of the PSM and RMP elements that we are familiar with and some supporting elements to help keep those main elements on track. In a high-performing process safety culture, subject matter experts (SMEs) are available for each element or pillar.  In the best facility organizations I have seen, each SME chairs one or more element committees assigned to monitor and drive improvements in element performance. A central committee composed of facility leadership and the SMEs regularly monitors and helps encourage progress by each pillar committee.  Sometimes that central committee monitors a broader range of health, safety, and environmental aspects than the process safety pillars depicted above, which is a model that I have also seen work well.  Here is a way to visualize one potential central and element committee structure, with the central committee driving the overall improvement cycle and each element committee focusing on and interacting with the central committee: In this type of systematic structure, there is an expectation that the element committees will have a set of meaningful leading and lagging measures that will be monitored and trended on a routine basis (monthly to quarterly) and used as a basis for driving continuous improvement planning.  Pillar metrics, planning, and resource needs are routinely reported to the central committee, and there is a further expectation that improvement planning will be reviewed, agreed and resourced as needed by the central committee.  You can think about this as a continuous two-way feedback cycle.  The assignment of a senior leadership team member as day-to-day liaison with each element committee is another enhancement I have seen work well to deliver results. Worthy of special notice, in a strong process safety culture, there will typically be an annual management review process that assesses the overall effectiveness of process safety. This process feeds improvement opportunities back into the applicable pillar committees for testing against line perspectives, executing improvements, and monitoring and assessing results.  This is easily visualized as the Review step of the central committee. Does this sound like a lot of work?  You’re absolutely right!  Will it improve your process safety culture and deliver strong performance results?  Right again!  There are other benefits as well.  As the central committee and SMEs recruit and develop enhanced process safety capability in facility personnel (including line personnel) participating in committees, you gain organizational competency; you are able to demonstrate strong employee participation, one of the key elements of process safety; and you provide a channel for line personnel to demonstrate leadership and technical qualities that might not otherwise be apparent.  There is a lot to gain by structuring your process safety programs as described. The Stakes The stakes for a strong process safety culture are higher than ever.  A single significant loss of primary containment could have potential impacts ranging from serious on-site and off-site injuries and illnesses, to environmental damage, to company reputational impact, to financial costs from equipment damage, to production loss, and even lawsuits filed against the company. So Now What? Consider reviewing this structure with your facility’s senior and extended leadership team.  Adopting the structure exactly as described may not be the best fit for your facility, but variations of it are within the reach of organizations of varying sizes.  There is much to gain in process safety performance with wide personnel involvement in improvement activities! Future blogs in this series on process safety culture will address more aspects of the overall process safety improvement cycle, examine aspects of individual process safety programs, and offer suggestions on both bigger and smaller efforts and methods to drive improvements.  Stay tuned for more!

Deadlines met through concurrent engineering and procurement while maintaining adherence to the Safety Lifecycle by Chris Hickling, PMP Implementing Safety Instrumented Systems (SIS) and Burner Management Systems (BMS) within tight deadlines and supply chain disruptions has become a challenge in the industrial space. A recent project implementing a Safety Instrumented BMS met strict safety standards despite tight deadlines and supply chain delays. The initial goal of the project was focused on converting the boiler fuel from coal to natural gas with a BMS provided by the boiler equipment supplier.  While the project was underway, requirements to apply risk and performance-based Process Safety Management (PSM) protocols were added to the project.  The client approached aeSolutions for application of the PSM protocol employing the equivalency clauses provided in the NFPA code for the BMS. This change required a strategic shift incorporating a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) and Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA), and Safety Instrumented Burner Management System (SI-BMS) implementation. Integrated planning with our client and the boiler equipment supplier was key to achieving the fast-track schedule, including concurrent engineering and early procurement of long-lead system components. PSM, SIS, and BMS experts addressed the safety and code requirements of the design, working together with systems engineering and panel design experts. The multi-discipline team efficiently produced the deliverable, aligning with the project's enhanced safety within the original project timeline. The Challenges The new additional project objective was to implement an SI-BMS using a Siemens PCS 7 Platform, meeting all the Safety Lifecycle requirements within a highly compressed schedule. Traditionally, the project would unfold sequentially, starting with a Process Hazard Analysis (PHA) followed by a Layers of Protection Analysis (LOPA), then continue with SIS Front End Loading (FEL), conducting Demand Rate Verification (DVR) SIL calculations, and completing the Safety Requirements Specification before moving on to Detailed Design. However, given the schedule constraints, a new strategy was required.   The strategy employed concurrent development of the PHA/LOPA, SIS deliverables, and early identification and procurement of long-lead items to achieve the existing deadlines of the project.   Additionally, early detailed planning and expedited deliveries were necessary to ensure that BMS was built and commissioned during the scheduled plant outage. Having all of the requisite expertise for each of the project analysis, engineering, procurement, fabrication, and commissioning steps within aeSolutions was critical to this fast track approach. Results A key takeaway from this project was the development of an integrated schedule to manage all activities effectively, significantly reducing the risk of late changes. Close collaboration between the client, the boiler equipment supplier, and Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) in SIS and BMS was necessary to maintain a fast-tracked schedule while meeting all the Safety Lifecycle requirements. This unified approach created a rapid turnaround on approvals for drawings and fabrication of the system for the project's tight timeline.  By employing a firm with the needed expertise in all these areas, delays due to processing and learning curves as well as the risk of rework associated with handoffs were avoided. The ability to assemble the appropriate SME expertise at the earliest stage of discovery while managing collaboration with the boiler equipment supplier and the client-enabled fast approval processes. Effective planning and all stakeholder’s cooperation were key to achieving all the project objectives.  The strategies and insights gained from overcoming these challenges offered valuable lessons for future similar projects.

aeSolutions agrees with the findings of the Construction Industry Institute (CII). The CII has done extensive research on improving project success. Through quantitative analysis of 62 projects, as noted in Analysis of Pre-Project Planning Effort and Success Variables for Capital Facility Projects, they found that the front end loading (FEL) “effort level directly affects the cost and schedule predictability of the project.” The CII described a staged approach to projects, where engineering is divided into two phases; front end loading and detailed design. The CII documented that front end loading of capital facilities “is an extremely important function in determining the ultimate outcome of a project.” They found that as the level of front end loading tasks increases the: Project cost performance from authorization decreases by as much as 20%, Variance between project schedule performance versus authorization decreases by as much as 39%, Plant design capacity attained and facility utilization improved by as much as 15%, Project scope changes after authorization tend to decrease Likelihood that a project met or exceeded its financial goals increased The CII defines a front end loading package for a capital facility as “the process of developing sufficient strategic information for owners to address risk and decide to commit resources to maximize the chance for a successful project.” They concluded that the “design work hours to be completed prior to project authorization should be from 10% to 25% of the total design effort depending upon the complexity of the project.” aeSolutions fully endorses the development of a front end loading package for all safety instrumented system projects. aeSolutions defines the following tasks as being part of a typical Safety Instrumented System Front End Loading (SIS FEL): Hazard identification Conduct HAZOP Risk assessment Perform LOPA Develop SIF list Develop SIS design basis support report Safety requirements specification (SRS) Develop lifecycle cost analysis Develop interlock / safety instrumented function list Develop sequence of operations Conceptual design specification Redline P&ID’s Develop system architecture diagram Develop E-stop philosophy Develop testing philosophy Develop UPS philosophy Develop bypassing philosophy Develop wiring philosophy Develop SIS logic solver specification – Bill of materials (BOM) Develop approved instrument vendor list / Procure plan for SIS Develop SIL verification report Develop control panel location sketch Develop control philosophy specification Summary safety report Construction estimate, total installed cost (+- 20%) When total lifecycle costs were compared for two design options on a large Burner Management System (BMS) program, it was determined that significant savings can be achieved for a 1oo1 sensor architecture (versus 2oo3), regardless of which cost basis was used for a nuisance trip. aeSolutions stands behind the concept of SIS FEL and believes the project contained within this case study on front end loading is a good example of the benefits and overall success of a phased/gated approach to project execution. Click here for the full story and case study. #burnermanagementsystems #frontendloadingonaBurnerManagementSystemproject #safetyinstrumentedsystems #FrontEndLoading

The process industry uses Layer Of Protection Analysis (LOPA) to document extremely small probabilities for catastrophic events. Predictions of 10-5/yr or less are common. The intent is to show that a facility is “safe." Yet, are such low numbers achievable in the real world? How does one prove that you are meeting them? The frequentist approach the method is based upon requires enormous amounts of data to state such a value definitively. A facility will not have, nor will it ever want, enormous amounts of data for rare catastrophic events. Such low targets are impossible to achieve when one considers the real-world uncertainties of physical systems and factors such as systematic errors. Considering that industry still experiences several disastrous events per year, the current methodology would appear to have a flaw. In fact, we would seem to be off target by up to three orders of magnitude. We are drowning in data, yet the real problems appear lost in the chaos. When everything appears to be a problem, nothing will be managed effectively. If one could successfully identify actual problems, then effective management could occur. Yet, how might one decipher the data and visualize the impact of potential shortcomings? One way could be with a periodic health check of the various independent protection layers (IPLs). According to the latest version of ISA/IEC 61511, functional safety assessments after a period of operation are now required to do exactly this. Bayes' rule could then be used to provide a means to visualize the findings using a protection layer called a “health meter.” The Bayesian approach starts with the optimistic rare event assumptions. This initial probability distribution is known as the “prior." The approach combines that with real-world observations, updating the model over time with new evidence to form a “posterior." The Bayesian approach allows all relevant evidence to be factored into the model, including subjective data. This approach allows one to base plant health metrics on observed evidence. Such an approach will likely show a facility isn’t as good as it hoped it was. When Bayes shows that 10-6/yr can’t be met, a facility must step back and ask, “What are we really trying to achieve?” Every facility needs to focus on the systems that need the most help. The Bayesian approach can show how each individual protection layer is behaving. Advanced warnings could then be given based on evidence. All this aims to discover systematic errors, allowing management to focus on fixing bad actors. To read the full paper and learn more about the “Bayes Truth Meter”, click here. Facility Siting CHAZOP

Inspired by “Conducting an Effective Functional Safety Assessment” presented at the ISA Process Industry Conference. by Greg Hardin Much has been written about the functional safety assessment (FSA) stages, the makeup of the team, and the types of documents that should be reviewed. Yet what might go wrong with an FSA, and what might you do to ensure that an FSA runs smoothly? Would you rather learn from the mistakes of others, or make them all yourself? It’s easier and less painful learning from the mistakes of others. Here are just a few of the things that can go wrong. A consultant was criticized for not identifying a problem on a wiring diagram while performing a stage 1 FSA that was restricted to software. This indicates two misunderstandings of the scope of the FSA: 1) it was limited to software, not hardware; 2) it was a stage 1 FSA – hardwire design would normally not be considered until stage 2. When reviewing the results of a FSA make sure everyone involved understands the scope of the FSA. If certain documents are not available (e.g., hazard analysis, layer of protection analysis, safety requirements specification, etc.) do not get pressured into doing an FSA anyway. After all, you can’t review the completeness of documents that don’t even exist. The fact that anyone would even request such an analysis implies a significant misunderstanding of the overall process. Clause 5.2.6.1.4 of ISA/IEC 61511 now states, “A FSA team shall review the work carried out on all phases of the safety life cycle prior to the stage covered by the assessment that have not been already covered by previous FSAs.” Read that sentence again, and slowly. This is a new requirement and the interpretation and implication may not be clear to some. For example, if you’re asked to perform a stage 3 assessment, but stage 1 and 2 assessments have not been performed, you will essentially still need to complete those earlier assessments! That may catch many off guard and have a significant impact on the budget and schedule. Here are some suggestions for conducting an effective assessment: Make a plan for the FSA — the standard requires it — and stick to it. If you absolutely must deviate from the plan, make sure you identify the consequences and communicate them to all interested parties. Don’t be afraid to “kick over some rocks” during the FSA meeting(s). It’s an opportunity to generate useful discussion. Have a scribe for FSA meetings. If that’s not possible, make sure you take very good notes. Be on the lookout for scope creep. Do not agree to do work that isn’t budgeted. Part 1 :How About a Stage Zero Functional Safety Assessment (FSA)? #show #standard #process #ISA #industry #fsa #control #functional #Safety

Several years ago, aeSolutions started our fired equipment business. This business is focused on safeguarding burners and furnaces, heaters, boilers for example. And there really wasn't the on site expertise into what's really going on. And then what are the hazards associated for some of our clients, one of the most hazardous processes on their facility might be their boiler. There are a lot of, kind of common applications, you see a lot of fired equipment, whether it's an incinerator or a boiler. But within the chemical market, those typically tend to be much more complicated applications of a boiler. In many cases, they can't bring these systems down at a very high frequency. They need to run them for extended periods of time, which makes the design of protective systems for those applications, much more complex and nuanced. In the past, the marker has been, well, natural gas is so cheap where they don't care how efficient our system are.  But today with so much awareness of carbon capturing and carbon release burning these systems more efficiently, efficient use of fuel, getting more energy, more BTUs out of this fuel is really important. Learn more about our Fired Equipment services: https://www.aesolutions.com/fired-equipment

by Tom McGreevy, PE, PMP, CFSE Spend a Little to Reduce the Project Risk Your team has established and communicated a financial justification for your site’s control system replacement project. Now all eyes are on you to ensure that the project is executed in a timely manner and within a certain budget. As Benjamin Franklin said, if you fail to plan, then you plan to fail. This is the second installment in a series on industrial control system migrations: Front End Loading. Why Does Anyone do Front End Loading (FEL)? FEL is all about minimizing the risk: The cost risk, the schedule risk, and the scope risk for any capital undertaking.  Early in a project, the cost impact of changes is low, but it increases, often drastically, in later stages. Implementing a stage-gated process gives an owner/operator the opportunity to make strategic choices instead of falling victim to a haphazard outcome. FEL can be multiple stages: FEL 1, FEL 2, and FEL 3. Some owners opt to only do a single FEL. However, the key is to consider all factors and engage in a level of FEL that is reasonable. Regardless of the number of FEL phases performed, all business needs should be evaluated, and a complete business case should be identified to minimize cost/schedule/budget (scope risk). Wise owners recognize the value of FEL and are more willing to invest strategically up front. The highest return on value at the lowest amount of risk can be easily attained through proper preparation and planning. Key Deliverables of FEL: 1. Execution Strategy and Plan 2. Resource Plan 3. Risk Management Plan 4. Change Management Plan Rip and Replace vs Phased Approach? Two strategies for a control system migration would typically be to either “rip and replace”- that is replace the entire system all at once, or to carry out a phased replacement. Removing the current system entirely and replacing it in one fell swoop during a major turnaround is an option that can be considered. However, often, the business is unable to incur a lengthy outage or is unwilling to accept the risk of a delayed restart if things don’t work out as planned. In these cases, a phased approach can be carried out that uses any combination of the following strategies: Perform a piecemeal upgrade of the system by area. For example, a site has multiple controllers in the plant that are geographically dispersed across different plant areas. Perhaps one plant area can withstand a complete outage better than another area or perhaps one area of the plant is suffering more reliability issues due to the old control system. This would be a piecemeal approach or a “mini-rip and replace” over several phases. Replace the “top layer”, the servers and operator stations for the entire system. Consideration must be given to the compatibility of new computer hardware and operating systems to the controllers and other interfaces.  Virtualization of the new top layer should be given strong consideration, as this topology is certainly the trend not just in industrial control but throughout the IT industry.  Then, in a subsequent phase, the controllers and I/O can be replaced by plant area. Note that sometimes old controllers are be replaced but the old I/O is kept in place. The reasons for this may be to reduce the field construction labor and the risk of cutting over the field device wiring during the turnaround. This approach should be very carefully considered as the plant could be left with long-term reliability issues associated with the old I/O. Another approach to keeping some of the legacy I/O sub-system something I refer to as “The alien approach.” Many may recall a scene from the movie Alien where the creature has its tentacles around a character's face. Similarly, in the alien approach, an adapter and harness are installed on top of old infrastructure, typically at the I/O rack, with the intent to significantly reduce the cutover time of an upgrade. Often such strategies retain a “Marshaling Terminal Assembly” or “Field Terminal Assembly”, which themselves have electronic components that can fail.  Thus, the trade-off is living with a portion of the old hardware and an old interface, and the adapter/harness strategy can also limit access to important troubleshooting points. A Living Functional Specification is a Rare Beast How well a system is documented over its lifetime is a major factor for any migration. Some owners do an outstanding job of keeping up not only their hardware documentation and wiring diagrams, but also the documentation for how the process is controlled. Unfortunately, a living functional specification is actually a rare beast. In any case, functional specification has to be thought through during FEL. Is it sufficient to guide the migration of the existing controller logic to the new controller? Will the project be upgrading the control platform with a system of the same OEM, and does the OEM provide migration tools? Regardless, the automation engineers will need adequate documentation to guide the migration. It is imperative to discuss the owner’s expectations and the programmer’s capabilities to reach an agreement during FEL that determines responsibility for developing the functional specification. Identifying accountability during the FEL phase, prior to the detailed execution phase will mitigate stressors when time is short and pressure is up. Ideally, the functional specification would either be developed, or at least well-outlined, in FEL. At a minimum, the functional specification should be developed as a very early-stage activity during the execution phase. Managing Expectations When we say migration, exactly what do we mean? Where will it start? How far will it go? Will we reuse marshaling terminals? What is our cutover plan?  Determining owner/operator expectations is imperative for success in any project but it is especially so for a controls migration project. The owner’s objectives guide the end-goal and the path taken, ultimately playing into the level of effort, configuration, testing plan, commissioning plan, commissioning duration, etc. Unfortunately, too often clients have not thought through their objectives for a migration project. As one simple example, an owner may say that they would like to roll out the new software but retain the look and feel of the old graphics. Accomplishing this can require a considerable amount of effort and cost, if it’s even possible at all. In addition, this strategy can miss a great opportunity to improve the operator interface experience, which can yield benefits in productivity, safety, and even operator stress levels. Another example involves the control logic itself. Does the owner want to replicate the existing logic in the new control system, or are they open to enhancements that optimize control or provide more operational flexibility? New and powerful control capabilities and features are available in today’s modern control systems. It may be short-sighted to implement a brand new, powerful control system while leaving the basic, 35-year-old control in place because that option appears to be easiest and cheapest. There is extraordinary benefit in exploring the capabilities of modern control systems, but this too should be done in an FEL phase. Some sites have been tempted to move forward with their migration and keep their same control logic and graphics, with the intent of making improvements after the new system is up and running. Perhaps that will be the outcome, but it is unlikely that there will be a compelling event in the future that will trigger additional spending to replace adequately working logic with something new. If the window is missed to optimize the controls during the upgrade, it will be difficult to justify doing so later. Conclusion Achieving the desired objectives in a control system migration requires a holistic, principled approach that combines thorough planning, effective communication, and proactive problem-solving.  Strategic decision-making and meticulous planning are key to any control system migration, upgrade, or replacement.  The Front-End Loading (FEL) phase is a pivotal element in minimizing risks associated with cost, schedule, and scope. Additionally, this process involves managing expectations and clearly communicating on objectives and priorities.

Engineers Week was established in 1951 as a way to promote a diverse and well-educated future engineering workforce by increasing understanding of and interest in engineering and technology careers. Each year, aeSolutions celebrates Engineers Week by hosting fun activities for our employees and by sharing resources and stories that highlight how engineers – and engineering companies – make a difference in our world. This year we asked our employees a series of questions related to engineering and engineering companies as a career choice. We’ll be sharing some of their answers over the course of Engineers Week, which runs from February 18-23. Today’s question focuses on what technologies our team members foresee impacting the engineering field. What new (recent or upcoming) technology do you believe will have the biggest impact on the engineering field? I wouldn't say it is new technology but the improvement in the abilities and use of "smart" devices and handhelds for asset testing/inspection has resulted in better documentation and assessment of equipment condition. Reliability engineers have more tools to monitor trends in equipment performance than even just a few years ago. – Melissa L. While it isn't a technology, emphasizing standardization and reuse will be critical. Rather than celebrating the brilliance of a unique one-off solution, celebrate the reuse of established standards and the work of others. This reduces risk and cost and increases quality and client satisfaction. – Ken O. Communications.  The methods have changed over my career, but the basics are still the same. – Andy G. I'm not entirely sure of the exact name (I think that it called the holo-mat?) It is an interesting technology that was designed for moving props for movies and productions. However, with a little bit of outside the box thinking, I wonder if that same technology could be used in engineering to make devices function more efficiently. – Wyatt S. AI, and perhaps superconductors that "superconduct" at room temperatures. – Tom M. Artificial intelligence will change our world.  While I see benefits, I also have concerns about all impacts (nothing is all good or all bad).  – Kelly J. AI is going to have a huge impact on the engineering world. AI will be able to develop hazard scenarios and analyze the consequences much faster than a human. – Carolyn B. AI - although I don't have the most positive outlook on it! – Ethan W. AI. – Mark S. I bet I'm in the majority here, but I believe A.I. will have the biggest impact on the engineering field. – Joel R.

Ken O'Malley, Founder & President of aeSolutions, reflects on 25 years of growth and connecting technical engineering expertise with people-focused leadership: Ken & Chery O'Malley recently sat down to talk about their 25 years with the company. Look for more content from that interview in the future.