System Integration tutorial: Measure Twice, Cut Once

The front-end loading (FEL) process applied to automation projects ensures that the human, financial, and physical tools are in place to get the job done right the first time.

11/30/2011


Most of us have heard the old saying, “measure twice, cut once.” It simply expresses the importance of proper planning as a means of using time and other resources wisely. This same principle governs all engineering and installation projects, including updating an existing control system or designing a completely new one. Without proper planning, the job will, at best, cost more and take longer than it should. At worst, it will fail.

While failure is rare, wasted time and money—as well as unnecessary worry—are not. Better management and upfront planning can ensure against that rare failure, pare down budgets, and calm nerves.

Employing a gated approach during the planning phase assures that when it’s time to implement a new process, or reconfigure an old one, the project and its intricacies will be clearly defined. Stakeholders will be closely aligned and countless other design issues addressed, reducing the risk of project delays, downtime, or something more severe—like a defective product.

Applying a gated process/front-end loading (also known as FEL; FEE–front-end engineering; FEED– front-end engineering design; and PPP–preproject planning) affords a project team time to think through the elements, scenarios, and the process itself, before bringing that process to life. Each phase, stage, or gate (typically there are three of them) focuses on a particular project portion in a way that helps to define the scope. Each phase has its set of stakeholders, issues, and considerations to embrace and resolve. And each must be resolved before moving to the next stage.

Gated process

It is a simple idea really, breaking down the process and working with the right personnel, from the plant floor to the executive suite, to ensure overall project success. So why don’t businesses allow for more engineering as part of the bidding process? Some have the misconception that using a gated process or front-end loading for engineering costs more, adds time, and involves too many people.

For example, say your intent is to build a new processing facility. The request for purchase (RFP) issued provides little project definition—there’s virtually zero clarity about facility size, equipment needs, production/staffing schedules, or output goals—let alone the company’s business case. The prime and subcontractor bids follow as those questions are answered. In turn, you review and award the work knowing the scope is unclear and add to what’s been estimated to cover additional questions and unknowns. Before work even begins, thousands of additional dollars are tied up in the contingencies that may be involved.

By applying just a portion of those contingency dollars to the preplanning process, you shrink the estimate range. Rather than overestimating, you can generate accurate budget numbers that reflect a clear scope. The contingency could be as little as +/- 10%—freeing up capital dollars for other initiatives. This level of definition also holds those involved accountable because submitted estimates are based on specific criteria.

FEL done properly, through capital appropriation and project control budget (+/- 10%), can require between 40%-65% of the overall engineering budget. While a considerable sum, this figure ensures that an owner, general contractor, vendors, suppliers, and subcontractors have all of the tools necessary upfront for good planning, estimating, and project execution.

Taking this approach lowers a project’s overall cost—often by as much as the costs of the FEL process itself.

Project timelines are also determined once the project is defined through a gated process. In addition, potential risks are flagged and addressed during planning rather than in the implementation phase when delays are costly. Because working through the different phases involves all stakeholders, projects are planned with a more holistic perspective. For example, if a project specifies a type of equipment that line workers have had a problem with in the past, causing downtime, that can be captured through the gated process. Not having that information could lead to a change order or production issues.

Gateway to success

As previously mentioned, the FEL process typically contains three phases, or gateways, before project execution and start-up. Passing through each gateway requires completion, presentation, and approval of specific activities.

  • Gateway I: Conceptual Engineering / Financial Feasibility

The first gateway, call it FEL 1, might be described as a quick look to test project feasibility, to make an informed decisions about possible return on investment and whether to pursue the project. Depending on project size, this stage can typically take around three weeks. It involves analyzing three issues: project goals, the business case, and scope of work.

The goals must define how the project changes the business for the better. The business case, of course, identifies the project’s financial benefit. Laying out the scope of work enables a preliminary cost estimate, which will typically have limited accuracy—because of the need to make numerous assumptions at this stage.

  • Gateway II: Preliminary Engineering / Financial Justification

Completing FEL 1 puts the project past the first gateway to FEL 2, which formalizes what must be done to make the project a success. FEL II begins after the business case has been presented to senior management having capital approval authority and they have decided to proceed to the next phase.

Among other activities, this phase assigns a project manager, refines the engineering, assembles a project team, and identifies key stakeholders who should—but without FEL often don’t—play a project role. FEL 2 also moves the engineering ahead to a point where it becomes possible to validate—or invalidate—the business case and justify the capital commitment within a more narrow range. It features a significant list of deliverables, including an approved capital request for engineering work and specifications for equipment requiring long lead times.

The focus of FEL 2 is to lock down the project’s scope and eliminate risks identified in FEL 1. It refines the milestone schedule, establishes a time frame for approving capital requests, and develops an execution plan, along with preliminary plans for commissioning, qualification, and verification.

Finally, this phase refines the estimate to a more accurate range (+/- 25%). Again, depending upon the project scope, FEL II may take one month to three months.

  • Gateway III: Detailed Engineering / Financial Budget

FEL 3 completes the capital-request process. Supporting documentation is submitted to the senior management and approval committees. Managers refine the project’s scope, add details to plans, fill in details on the schedule, and finalize the project execution plan. The start-up plan is further developed in this phase. It includes establishing staffing requirements, developing training materials for operations and maintenance staff, and scheduling the commissioning, qualification, and verification processes.

FEL 3 typically takes one to three months to complete and ends with final capital approvals that enable the project to commence (+/- 10%).

FEL case study

A gated process shouldn’t be viewed as an additional layer of work that adds costs. A systematic approach to engineering means better results for the project, bottom line, and business.

As the third-ranked food-process design firm in the country and leading supplier of process controls solutions, SSOE Group understands the specific production concerns of food manufacturers. In a recent project for a food manufacturer, SSOE replaced an outdated ABB control system with a new Allen-Bradley ControLogix system. While the project seemed straightforward, SSOE and the manufacturer applied the FEL process to identify potential risks and create a schedule.

During FEL 1 and FEL 2, SSOE met with the manufacturer’s corporate project manager, plant manager, supervisors, and maintenance personnel. Through these planning sessions, the project team identified the best option, which was to leave the actual process portion of the ABB system alone and change all the controls to the new Allen-Bradley system. SSOE determined that it would take three weeks of downtime to replace and integrate the new controls. In addition, the team would need eight to 10 weeks for preparation and programming.

Upfront planning allowed manufacturing to identify a production window that would accommodate the downtime, and allowed the contractor to prepare and pull wires from the old system ahead of time. Had these timing requirements not been considered, the project would have been rushed, leaving room for error, or would have exceeded its schedule.

In addition, the gated process allowed SSOE to recognize factors impacting control system installation and start-up. Creating an accurate schedule and cost estimate was influenced by the number and availability of plant resources, time for training as well as training materials, a start-up curve for plant personnel, and time for testing and maintenance.

The several weeks spent in the preplanning process were critical to overall project success. Not only was the conversion completed on time, but it was approximately $30,000 under budget. The manufacturer was able to use the money saved for additional improvements.

Three steps

The three steps that compose the FEL engineering portion of the project ensure success in numerous ways. The FEL planning process helps integrators and their clients estimate projects more accurately, deal effectively with risk, and establish efficient plant operations. The process ensures that the human, financial, and physical tools are in place to get the job done right the first time.

Tim Michalski, PE, is a senior electrical engineer at SSOE Group, an international engineering, procurement, and construction management firm.

www.ssoe.com/savecapital 

Get more help online

http://controleng.com/integration

Michalski is responsible for the management and leadership of electrical control and power distribution system projects for industrial manufacturing clients. With over 30 years of experience, Tim has a demonstrated understanding of using a gated process/front-end loading to help clients achieve their project goals. He can be reached in SSOE’s Toledo office at 419.255.3830 or by e-mail at Tim.Michalski(at)ssoe.com.



No comments
The Top Plant program honors outstanding manufacturing facilities in North America. View the 2013 Top Plant.
The Product of the Year program recognizes products newly released in the manufacturing industries.
The Leaders Under 40 program features outstanding young people who are making a difference in manufacturing. View the 2013 Leaders here.
The new control room: It's got all the bells and whistles - and alarms, too; Remote maintenance; Specifying VFDs
2014 forecast issue: To serve and to manufacture - Veterans will bring skill and discipline to the plant floor if we can find a way to get them there.
2013 Top Plant: Lincoln Electric Company, Cleveland, Ohio
Case Study Database

Case Study Database

Get more exposure for your case study by uploading it to the Plant Engineering case study database, where end-users can identify relevant solutions and explore what the experts are doing to effectively implement a variety of technology and productivity related projects.

These case studies provide examples of how knowledgeable solution providers have used technology, processes and people to create effective and successful implementations in real-world situations. Case studies can be completed by filling out a simple online form where you can outline the project title, abstract, and full story in 1500 words or less; upload photos, videos and a logo.

Click here to visit the Case Study Database and upload your case study.

Bring focus to PLC programming: 5 things to avoid in putting your system together; Managing the DCS upgrade; PLM upgrade: a step-by-step approach
Balancing the bagging triangle; PID tuning improves process efficiency; Standardizing control room HMIs
Commissioning electrical systems in mission critical facilities; Anticipating the Smart Grid; Mitigating arc flash hazards in medium-voltage switchgear; Comparing generator sizing software

Annual Salary Survey

Participate in the 2013 Salary Survey

In a year when manufacturing continued to lead the economic rebound, it makes sense that plant manager bonuses rebounded. Plant Engineering’s annual Salary Survey shows both wages and bonuses rose in 2012 after a retreat the year before.

Average salary across all job titles for plant floor management rose 3.5% to $95,446, and bonus compensation jumped to $15,162, a 4.2% increase from the 2010 level and double the 2011 total, which showed a sharp drop in bonus.

2012 Salary Survey Analysis

2012 Salary Survey Results

Maintenance and reliability tips and best practices from the maintenance and reliability coaches at Allied Reliability Group.
The One Voice for Manufacturing blog reports on federal public policy issues impacting the manufacturing sector. One Voice is a joint effort by the National Tooling and Machining...
The Society for Maintenance and Reliability Professionals an organization devoted...
Join this ongoing discussion of machine guarding topics, including solutions assessments, regulatory compliance, gap analysis...
IMS Research, recently acquired by IHS Inc., is a leading independent supplier of market research and consultancy to the global electronics industry.
Maintenance is not optional in manufacturing. It’s a profit center, driving productivity and uptime while reducing overall repair costs.
The Lachance on CMMS blog is about current maintenance topics. Blogger Paul Lachance is president and chief technology officer for Smartware Group.