Managing Transitions

between Construction Completion,

Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning,
and Startup

Special Publication 333-1

CII Member Organizations
Abbott AECOM
Adventist Health Affiliated Construction Services Inc.
Ameren Corporation APTIM
American Transmission Company LLC Atlas RFID Solutions
Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Autodesk, Inc.
Andeavor AZCO INC.
Anheuser-Busch InBev Baker Concrete Construction Inc.
Aramco Services Company Barton Malow Company
ArcelorMittal Bechtel Group, Inc.
Architect of the Capitol Bentley Systems Inc.
Ascend Performance Materials Black & Veatch
AstraZeneca Burnham Nationwide
BP America, Inc. Burns & McDonnell
Cargill, Inc. CB&I
Chevron CCC Group
ConocoPhillips CDI Corporation
Consolidated Edison Company of New York CH2M
Consumers Energy Company Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A.
Covestro LLC Continuum Advisory Group
DTE Energy CRB
Eastman Chemical Company CSA Central, Inc.
Eli Lilly and Company Day & Zimmermann
EnLink Midstream Deloitte
ExxonMobil Corporation Eichleay, Inc.
General Electric Company Emerson
General Motors Company Enstoa, Inc.
GlaxoSmithKline ePM
Global Infrastructure Partners Fluor Corporation
Honeywell International Inc. Hargrove Engineers + Constructors
Huntsman Corporation Haskell
Irving Oil Limited Hilti Corporation
Kaiser Permanente I.M.P.A.C.T.
Koch Industries, Inc. IHI E&C International Corporation
LyondellBasell Jacobs
Marathon Petroleum Corporation JMJ Associates LLC
National Aeronautics & Space Administration KBR
NOVA Chemicals Corporation Kiewit Corporation
Occidental Petroleum Corporation M&H Enterprises (Energy Services)
ONEOK, Inc. Matrix Service Company
Ontario Power Generation McCarthy Building Companies, Inc.
Petroleo Brasileiro S/A – Petrobras McKinsey & Company, Inc.
Petronas Midwest Steel, Inc.
Phillips 66 Pathfinder, LLC
Pioneer Natural Resources PCL Constructors, Inc.
Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP
Public Service Electric & Gas Company PTAG, Inc.
Reliance Industries Limited (RIL) Quality Execution, Inc.
SABIC – Saudi Basic Industries Corporation Richard Industrial Group
Shell Global Solutions US Inc. S & B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd.
Smithsonian Institution Samsung Engineering America
Southern Company Saulsbury Industries
Tennessee Valley Authority SBM Offshore
The Dow Chemical Company Sinopec Engineering (Group) Co., Ltd. – SEG
The Procter & Gamble Company Skanska USA
The Williams Companies, Inc. SNC-Lavalin Constructors Inc.
TransCanada Corporation TechnipFMC plc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers The Boldt Company
U.S. Department of Commerce/NIST/EL thyssenkrupp Industrial Solutions (USA), Inc.
U.S. Department of Defense/ Valency Inc.
Tricare Management Activity Victaulic
U.S. Department of Energy Wanzek Construction, Inc.
U.S. Department of State Wilhelm Construction, Inc.
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs Wood
U.S. General Services Administration WorleyParsons
Zachry Group
Zurich
Managing Transitions
between Construction Completion, Pre-Commissioning,
Commissioning, and Startup

Research Team 333, Transition Management between Construction

Completion, Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup

Construction Industry Institute

Special Publication 333-1

November 2017
© 2017 Construction Industry Institute™

The University of Texas at Austin

CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients. CII members
are permitted to revise and adapt this work for their internal use, provided an informational copy is furnished to CII.

Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed, and no modifications may be made,
without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to purchase copies.
Volume discounts may be available.

All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at member
prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without modification for
educational use.

Printed in the United States of America.

Contents

Chapter

Executive Summary v

1. Introduction 1
Project Performance and Commissioning Impacts: 1
The Business Case
Commissioning Transitions and Complexities 2
Scope of this Research and Report 6

2. Methodology 9

3. Findings 13
CCSU Implementation Process 13
CCSU Solution Tools 15
CCSU Hot Spots 37
Heidelberg Spar Illustrative Case Study 48

4. Conclusions and Recommendations 57

Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms 59

Appendix B: Scopes of Pre-Commissioning vs. Commissioning 69

vs. Startup

Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations 71

Appendix D: CSU Critical Success Factors and Indicators 135

of Achievement (from CII 2015)

References 139

iii
 Executive Summary

Several prior studies indicate that commissioning failures are too common in frequency
and extremely costly in impact. The business case for action is clear, yet the transitions
between construction/pre-commissioning/commissioning/startup/close-out (abbreviated
CCSU in this publication, emphasizing the construction component) remain challenging
for many reasons. This is primarily due to contractual separations and the multitude of
organizational interfaces and handoffs during CCSU.

Achieving project and commissioning success requires a solid understanding of the

CCSU activities to be undertaken and the associated responsibility assignments. CII
created Research Team 333 (RT-333), Transition Management between Construction
Completion, Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup, and challenged it to
provide answers to the essential question: How can the industry establish or clarify the
accountabilities and responsibilities among construction completion, pre-commissioning,
commissioning, and operations functions?

In response to this essential question, RT-333 developed a 17-step implementation

process that integrates the key findings from all three CII research teams that have
addressed commissioning: RT-121, Planning for Startup; RT-312, Best Practices for
Commissioning and Startup; and RT-333 itself.

The RT-333 research developed four important deliverables:

1. CCSU Activity Flowchart – RT-333’s unique contribution to the

understanding of Commissioning and Startup was a flowchart of 124 CCSU
activities, organized by relevant project phase and four thematic categories.

2. CCSU RACI Matrix – The RACI matrix builds on the CCSU activity
flowchart, defining whether each activity’s manager is Responsible, is
Accountable, should be Consulted, or should be Informed. While the
Commissioning/Startup manager is generally responsible for 49 of the
activities, 39 other activities are generally the responsibility of three other
key managers: Project manager, Construction manager, and Operations
manager.

The RACI matrix is intended to serve only as a point-of-departure for

in-depth management-team discussions. The ultimate objective of this
research is for the project team to achieve agreement and full alignment of
understanding of who is responsible for what.

v
 3. CCSU Hot Spots – RT-333 provided further insight into the challenges of
CCSU transitions by identifying “hot spots”: CCSU activities that generally
either have unclear responsibility assignments, recurring problems, or
deficiencies, or that often fail to deliver on expectations. Twenty CCSU hot
spots surfaced from research-based screening efforts. Surprisingly, three-
quarters of the selected hot spots occur during the Construction phase,
emphasizing the challenges of transitions and indicating a need for greater
involvement and alignment by the project management team during this
phase.

Each of the 20 hot spots is characterized by 10 fields of information,

including common impacts, causal factors, and prevention/mitigation
strategies, for which RT-333 conducted trend analyses. The research team
also cross-linked the hot spots with the 16 commissioning/startup critical
success factors previously identified by RT-312. This analysis further
underscores the particular importance of CCSU alignment, execution
planning, and check-sheets.

4. Heidelberg Spar Case Study – Lastly, RT-333 documented an illustrative

case study to demonstrate the substantial value that results from timely and
effective mitigation efforts for targeted (i.e., project-specific) CCSU hot spots.

Collectively, the findings from this study provide focused and substantive guidance on
how project teams can enhance the effectiveness of CCSU transitions.

Downloading this CII Publication’s Accompanying Software

If you downloaded or purchased this publication in electronic format,

the accompanying software would have been part of the original zip file.
Make sure to extract the zip file prior to using the software.

If you received this publication as a printed book, you will want to

download the accompanying software from the CII website, saving its zip
file to your hard drive.
Simply log in to the CII site, point your browser to the URL below, and click
Download Now to access the eCopy zip file containing the accompanying
software. Make sure to extract the zip file prior to using the software.

http://go.cii.today/sp333-1

vi
 1
Introduction

Project Performance and Commissioning Impacts: The Business Case

The business case for more careful and effective project commissioning is no
mystery. Numerous individual project case studies, industry studies, and publications
have documented the extensive added cost, delayed payback, and loss of investment
value that result from ineffective plant commissioning and startup. Some representative
findings include the following alarming statistics:
• The transition from [construction] execution into operations is where high
leakage of value occurs. In certain case studies, this leakage has destroyed
30% of the initial investment value. (Deloitte 2012)
• Of all CII 10-10 projects surveyed, 30% experienced commissioning cost
overruns and 40% had commissioning schedule overruns. (CII 2016)
• On average, companies reporting low use of CII’s Planning for Startup Best
Practice had a project cost 7.4% higher than those with high use of Planning
for Startup. (CII 2010)
• Of 130 oil and gas megaprojects (costing more than $1 billion), 78% were
classified as failures. (Merrow 2011)
• Overall, 47% of oil and gas production facilities had significant operability
problems. These failed projects averaged only 60% of planned production in
the first year, and 65% suffered long-term operations issues. (Merrow 2011)
• On average, offshore projects that leave the yard incomplete and need to
complete fabrication offshore have an actual hook-up/commissioning cost of
almost 250% of planned cost. (Lamport and Rosenberg 2005)
• Among 11 large steel manufacturing facilities started up in the late 1990s,
none reached design capacity within one year, and only one did so after two
years. (Bagsarian 2012)

Quantitatively, the RT-333 research found several examples of the costly effects
from delayed production:
• Greenfield biotech project: up to $3 million per day of lost production
• Deep-water spar projects: up to $2 million per day of lost production
• Large greenfield chemical plant projects: up to $1.5 million per day of lost
production

1
1. Introduction

RT-333’s analysis of the impacts of construction/pre-commission/commissioning/

startup (CCSU) “hot spot” failures found that 95% result in schedule delays, 80% result
in increased commissioning cost, and 35% result in increased Health, Safety, and
Environment (HSE) risk, increased downtime/decreased production post-startup, and/
or deteriorating relationships between project delivery organizations.

While the evidence of commissioning failures is widespread and generally readily

recognized, the solution or “fix” is not so straightforward. The fact remains that
commissioning and startup of modern manufacturing facilities is highly complex – from
both technical and organizational perspectives.

Commissioning Transitions and Complexities

To u n d e r st a n d t h e c o m p l ex i t y of
commissioning and star tup, one must
appreciate the complexity of the various CCSU
transitions. One way to do this is to overview
the five phases involved and recognize that
“a baton is being passed” at each of four
transitions:

1. Construction to Pre-Commissioning
2. Pre-Commissioning to Commissioning
3. Commissioning to Startup
4. Startup to Close-out

While the baton analogy may be overused, it seems very appropriate in this context. In
the case of CCSU, the baton represents incremental, documented progress: the project
evolves from an incomplete collection of physical objects during construction, to a physically
complete but not fully tested collection of systems, to ultimately an operating plant with
a fully-formed supportive infrastructure in both human and business system forms.

Figure 1 illustrates some of the complexities of phase transitions, and is helpful for
establishing some basic terminology. Fabrication (or pre-fabrication) adds another level of
transitional complexity, while sequential milestones represent progress markers. The dotted
horizontal swim-lanes indicate a systems-centric approach, rather than the conventional
emphasis on disciplines and geographical areas characteristic of field construction and
its management. (The scopes of Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup are
described in detail in Appendix B. A full glossary of terms is provided in Appendix A.)

2
 Site Systems/Subsystems Site Construction Pre-Commissioning Commissioning Startup Close-out

S1

S2

S3

SAT
Module-Integrated Systems MC EN TC PSSR TS IF FCP

Milestones

Transport
Fabrication Pre-Comm’ng
Skids/Modules

AT – Acceptance Testing
EN – Energization
FAT – Factory Acceptance Testing
MC AT FCP – First Commercial Product
IF – Introduce Feedstock (process materials)
MC – Mechanical Completion
PSSR – Pre-Startup Safety Review
SAT – Site Acceptance Testing
OEM/Engineering

Transport

Fabrication TC – Turnover to Commissioning

Equipment

TS – Turnover to Startup

Transition
FAT Interim Milestone

Figure 1. CCSU System Phases and Milestones

1. Introduction
3
1. Introduction

Another view of CCSU transitional complexity can be revealed by examining

contracting strategy/delivery model options for the four phases between Construction
and Startup. During its research of these phases, RT-333 identified three different
dominant models of contracting and service delivery (see Figure 2):
• Strategy A: Owner-Construction Contractor-Equipment Supplier Mix
• Strategy B: External Commissioning Team
• Strategy C: Turnkey by Construction Contractor.

The figure provides motives, advantages, disadvantages, and sub-options for each
strategy. Abutting colored boxes depict contract and work scope, and indicate interface
management requirements or efforts. These interfaces are particularly relevant where
they coincide with the phase boundaries – and shed more light on CCSU transitional
challenges. Different organizations contractually engaged to execute different parts (or
phases) of the project establish fundamental boundary conditions for work scope and
associated responsibility assignments.

To better understand industry practice in this aspect, RT-333 asked 16 of its own
team members (owner and contractor) to identify which of these strategies they applied
to their various projects. The findings (i.e., collective averages) are shown in Figure 3.

Strategy B:
External
Commissioning
Team
Strategy A:
Owner– 25%
Construction
Contractor–
Equipment Strategy C:
Supplier Mix Turnkey by
56% Construction
Contractor
19%

Figure 3 Models of Contracting and Service Delivery Used by RT-333 Members

These learnings on the diversity of CCSU contractual/delivery approaches helped

RT-333 to frame its subsequent efforts and activities.

4
 Strategy A: Owner-Construction Contractor – Equipment Supplier Mix
Pre- Considerations/Motives Sub-Options
Construction Commissioning Startup • Owner, construction contractor, and • A1 – Owner-dominated
Commissioning
equipment supplier staff make up Commissioning execution
Oversight & the Commissioning team. • A2 – Construction contractor-
Owner/PM
Assurance • Variable: Level of Operations dominated Commissioning
involvement in Commissioning execution
• Contractor Commissioning • A3 – Equipment supplier-dominated
Management Owner/PM
execution trade labor supply only Commissioning execution
Operations Advantages Disadvantages
Owner +
Execution Construction Contractor Constr. Contr. + • Mix of skills/talents • Continuity of personnel
Eqpt. Supplier

Strategy B: External Commissioning Team

Pre- Considerations/Motives Sub-Options
Construction Commissioning Startup • “ Fly-in/fly-out” model • Some portion of the external
Commissioning
• Very effective with replication Commissioning team stays on
Oversight & projects through initial operations.
Owner/PM
Assurance • External Commissioning team also • B1 – External team is all-owner.
has design input on commissioning • B2 – External team is all-contractor.
during early Planning/Design • B3 – External team is all-third party.
Management Owner/PM
phases
Operations Advantages Disadvantages
External
Execution Construction Contractor Commissioning • More experienced/knowledgeable • Some experience/expertise is lost
Team Commissioning personnel when the external Commissioning
team leaves.

Strategy C: Turnkey by Construction Contractor

Pre- Considerations/Motives
Construction Commissioning Startup • Construction contractor (or its subcontractor) self-performs all management
Commissioning
and execution through the end of Commissioning
Oversight &
Owner/PM Advantages Disadvantages
Assurance
• Communication easier since • Operations less involved in startup
one entity performs all execution process
Management through Commissioning • Continuity of personnel into startup
Construction Contractor Operations
Execution

1. Introduction
Figure 2. Three Dominant Models of Contracting and Service Delivery Identified by RT-333
5
1. Introduction

Scope of this Research and Report

The CII Research Committee set up RT-333 with the following essential question:

How can the industry establish or clarify the accountabilities and responsibilities
among construction completion, pre-commissioning, commissioning, and
operations functions?

Early on, the team framed its intentions by first understanding prior commissioning-
related efforts and learnings by CII and others. These included the Planning for Startup
best-practice guidance established by RT-121 in the late 1990s, along with the more
recent work of RT-312, Best Practices for Commissioning and Startup.

Notable developments by RT-121 included a Planning for Startup process map,

descriptive profiles of planning activities, several dozen implementation tools, and
guidance on commissioning performance benchmarking. In 2015, RT-312 presented an
updated Planning for Startup process, 16 commissioning/startup critical success factors
(CSF), indicators of CSF achievement, commissioning/startup (CSU) performance case
studies, and characterizations of five innovative commissioning technologies.

Acknowledging these contributions and their continuing significance, RT-333 set out
to fill some knowledge-voids by defining CCSU transition activities, CCSU organization
functions, CCSU responsibility and accountability assignments, commonly problematic
“hot spots,” and an implementation process that ties together the key work products of
all three research teams.

Figure 4 depicts the relationship between the three bodies of work. Planning for
Startup guidance (RT-121) comes first and then transitions to CCSU execution efforts
(RT-333) early to mid-way through construction. The critical success factors (RT-312)
establish influential management efforts that provide an effective base or foundation
for both planning and execution (a listing of these is provided in Appendix D).

After this introductory segment, the structure of this report addresses methodology,
followed by findings. Findings are organized as solution tools, hot spots, and the Heidelberg
Spar illustrative case study. Conclusions and Recommendations recap key learnings,
followed by Appendices, which include a glossary of terms along with other elements.

6
 Project Phases
Front-End Pre-
Detailed Design Construction
Feasibility Engineering Commissioning Commissioning Startup Close-out Operations

Planning for CSU Managing CCSU Transitions

RT-121 (1998) RT-333 (2017)

CSU Critical Success Factors and Indicators

RT-312 (2015)

Figure 4. Relationships among CII Commissioning Studies and their Products

1. Introduction
7
 2
Methodology

Research Team 333 (RT-333) was made up of 19 industry professionals from a

variety of sectors and backgrounds, with cumulative commissioning/startup experience
of 285 years on 279 different projects. Ten of the team members came from contractor
companies of various types, including construction, project software, and suppliers.
The other nine members came from owner organizations of various types, including
petrochemical, pharmaceutical, metals, pipelines, and government institutions.

Figure 5 shows the methodology RT-333 applied to conduct its research.

1. Research Objectives and Scope

3. CCSU 4. Review of
2. Review of Literature and
System Phases RT-312
Corporate Practices
and Milestones Potential CSFs

7. CCSU
6. CCSU 8. CCSU
Contract
5. Organizational Activity List
Strategies/
Illustrative Functions and Flowchart
Delivery Models
Case Study

9. RACI Matrix and Analysis

10. CCSU Hot Spot Identification

11. CCSU Hot Spot Characterization Interviews

12. CCSU Implementation Process

13. Research Products (IR, Tools, and Conference Presentation)

14. Validation

Figure 5. RT-333 Study Methodology

9
2. Methodology

Five major research products have resulted from the data collection and analysis
efforts, including the CCSU activity flowchart, the CCSU RACI matrix, hot spot
identification, hot spot characterizations, and the Heidelberg Spar illustrative case study.
Data gathering was conducted mostly through surveys and phone interviews.

CCSU Activity Flowchart – In its earliest form, this flowchart listed the CCSU
activities in the order they are executed, from the Construction phase through Project
Close-out. Activities were collected from literature review sources, team members’
company documents, and the research team itself. The list originally grew to include
more than 300 CCSU activities. Over time, with multiple reviews and revisions, RT-333
reduced the number of activities to 124 by eliminating repeats, combining like activities,
and excluding sector-specific activities. The remaining 124 activities were organized
into a matrix organized by phase timing and activity topic type. The team’s sub-teams
conducted “cold-eye” reviews of each phase-portion of the flowchart.

CCSU RACI Matrix – RACI matrices are a widely accepted industry-standard, efficient
way of modeling responsibility, accountability, consultation, and information-sharing
assignments for work activities. The CCSU RACI matrix was created by establishing
a listing of common capital project organizational functions (rather than roles or job
titles) and then assigning specific organizational functions as Responsible, Accountable,
Consulted, or Informed for each of the activities in the CCSU activity flowchart. This was
a highly iterative process in which the team’s sub-teams reviewed each other’s RACI
draft assignments and made modifications as needed. As with the flowchart itself, the
team’s sub-teams conducted “cold-eye” reviews of each phase-portion of the RACI matrix.

Hot Spot Identification – RT-333 used a survey to determine which CCSU activities
commonly have unclear responsibility assignments, result in recurring problems or
deficiencies, or often fail to deliver on expectations. The survey was completed by
both team members and their corporate colleagues that possess CCSU experience. A
total of 49 individuals representing 15 different companies participated in the screening
process. Each company’s representatives identified several CCSU activities that were
most problematic for their company, and documented their reasoning. The survey results
were compiled, and activities identified as problematic by three or more companies
were labeled as “hot spots.”

While no one believed the resultant listing of 20 hot spots to be complete or

exhaustive, it is presented in this research as a recommended starting point for team
discussions on proactive and mitigative planning. Indeed, any one of the 124 CCSU
activities could be problematic under certain conditions, so vigilance is needed. The

10
 2. Methodology

hot spots cited should not restrict the breadth of issues considered or promote any
managerial complacency.

Hot Spot Characterizations – Next, RT-333 developed in-depth characterizations

of the hot spots by drawing on data collected from the hot spot survey, as well as
from individual phone interviews that elicited experience-based opinions from 23
CCSU professionals who were not team members. These phone interviewees had
CSU experience with companies in various industry sectors totaling 433 years, and
averaging 19 years per person. Fourteen of the interviewees (61%) worked for owner
organizations, while nine (39%) came from contractor companies. Each interviewee
was interviewed about two or more hot spots which he or she had previously identified
as “most problematic.” Interview topics included details about common deficiencies,
causal factors, common impacts, real-life examples, and prevention/mitigation strategies.
Each hot spot characterization indicates how many CSU professionals contributed to
its inclusion – a number that ranged between 10 and 31 for each hot spot.

The Heidelberg Spar Case Study – RT-333 studied the Heidelberg Spar offshore
project to illustrate the positive impacts of effectively preventing or mitigating anticipated
CCSU hot spots (issues that had become evident on a prior, similar offshore spar project
that had experienced disappointing commissioning performance). The researchers
documented hot spot-related learnings and responsive actions taken from the Heidelberg
Spar project, along with a comparison of commissioning performance metrics between
the two projects. The illustrative case study was developed based upon shared project
documentation and in-depth interviews with key project personnel.

RT-333 sought to integrate all key commissioning-related guidance from CII into an
integrated CCSU implementation process. The team’s intent was to show how planning
for startup, commissioning critical success factors, and this new work by RT-333 can
be seamlessly integrated and implemented in a real-world capital project context. Like
many other steps in the team’s methodology, this effort was highly iterative, involving
many reviews and revisions.

Finally, 11 reviewers from outside RT-333 conducted validation reviews of the CCSU
activity flowchart, portions of the RACI matrix, and the hot spot characterizations. These
outside reviewers possessed a total 152 years of CSU experience on 169 different
commissioned projects. RT-333 received over 200 comments from the reviewers, and
made modifications in response to comments judged to be relevant, appropriate, and
beneficial.

11
 3
Findings

CCSU Implementation Process

Figure 6 depicts the recommended 17-step CCSU implementation process, which

links the key research findings from RT-121, Planning for Startup; RT-312, Best Practices
for Commissioning and Startup; and RT-333, CCSU Transition Management.

Feasibility 1. Recognize Importance of CSU

5. Understand
Front-End 2. Plan for Startup (RTs 121 and 312)
CSU Contract
Engineering Strategy

3. Implement 4. Monitor
CSU Critical Associated CSF
Success Factors Leading Indicators
(RT-312) (RT-312) 7. Review the
RT-333 CCSU
Flowchart and
RACI Matrix
6. Confirm 8. Assign
Detailed Adequate Budget 9. Identify Names to
and Schedule for and Fill CCSU RACI
Design
Successful CSU Unassigned Organizational
Functions Functions

13. Review CCSU

Activity Flowchart
and Identify 12. On-board 10. Formalize the
Project-specific and Align with CCSU Organization
Hot Spots CCSU Staff Chart

14. Prepare Time-scaled

11. Integrate CCSU
Prevention/ Mitigation
Organization Chart and 17. Monitor
Plans for Each Hot Spot
RACI Assignments into CCSU RACI
(Including RACI
CCSU Execution Plan and Hot Spot
Assignments)
Construction Planning,
Execution,
16. Revise and and Close-out
Confirm Budget 15. Integrate Hot Spot
Performance
and Schedule Prevention/Mitigation Plans
for CCSU into CCSU Execution Plan

Pre-
Commissioning,
Commissioning,
and Startup

Close-out

Figure 6. CCSU Implementation Process

13
3. Findings

Specifically, the CCSU implementation process sequentially integrates the following

key elements (with sourcing information indicated in italics):
• Planning for Startup efforts (prior to construction)
(RTs 121 and 312)
• Commissioning critical success factors and associated
indicators of achievement
(RT-312)
• Pre-Commissioning/Commissioning contract strategy
(RT-333, this report)
• CCSU activity flowchart
(RT-333, this report)
• CCSU organization functions
(RT-333, this report)
• CCSU RACI matrix (RT-333, this report)
• CCSU execution planning and alignment efforts
(RT-333, this report)
• CCSU hot spots and associated prevention/mitigation strategies
(RT-333, this report).

The last five CCSU elements in the list above will be discussed in detail in this chapter.
For in-depth information on Planning for Startup and commissioning critical success
factors (and their indicators of achievement), see CII Implementation Resources 121-2
and 312-2, respectively.

14
 3. Findings

CCSU Solution Tools

Flowchart of CCSU Activities

In order to effectively manage the transitions between Construction Completion,

Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, Startup, and Close-out, project teams first must
fully understand the key activities that comprise those CCSU project phases. Figure 7
shows the flowchart of CCSU activities (divided across four pages in this book, but
provided as a single matrix in a downloadable PDF that accompanies this publication).
The flowchart of CCSU activities provides project teams with a starting point upon
which they can gain alignment on the CCSU scope of work that lies ahead. The
flowchart depicts 124 activities arrayed across the five CCSU phases: Construction,
Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, Startup, and Close-out. As indicated, the activities
are grouped according to their relative timing within each phase: Early, Mid, or Late.
Interestingly, a disproportionate share (47 of the activities, or nearly 38%) are associated
with the Construction phase.

For context and ease of comprehension, the 124 CCSU activities are also grouped
according to their topical or thematic category, for which there are four horizontal “swim
lanes”:
• Planning/Schedule/Management/Staffing (31 activities)
• Materials/Equipment/Components (27 activities)
• Subsystems/Systems/Interconnecting Systems (31 activities)
• Data/Documentation/Audits and Certifications (35 activities)

Interestingly, the activities are nearly evenly distributed across these four themes.

As has previously been indicated, in the CCSU Implementation Process (Figure 6),
the flowchart should be reviewed and discussed by the project team as a part of
Step 7: “Review the RT-333 CCSU Flowchart and RACI Matrix.” In regard to timing, it
is recommended that this step occur sometime between late Front-End Engineering
(also known as FEED, Detailed Scoping, or Basic Design) and early Detailed Design.

In the CCSU activity flowchart, CCSU activities that are associated with commonly
problematic CCSU “hot spots” (which will be discussed later) are indicated as shaded/
colored. (See Figure 7.) Refer to the glossary of terms provided in Appendix A to clarify
any unfamiliar terms.

15
3. Findings

1. Construction Phase
Early Mid Late
1 HS #11 E 7 EML 27 HS #6 ML
Conduct Construction- Conduct area-specific Plan for and manage
CSU alignment meeting health, safety, security, CSU schedule
on the execution plan and environ. training recovery
A. Planning/Schedule/Management/Staffing

2 HS #20 E 8 EML
Legend
Conduct Construction- Identify and manage Activity Hot Spot Phase
CSU team building CSU-related risks number number Timing

3 E 9 EML Activity Name

Complete system Refine Startup
integrated project
test matrix and
schedule with adjustments
agreement from risks and delays

A colored background signifies that

4 EML 10 EML
Ensure CSU Critical
this is a Hot Spot.
Coordinate CSU plans
Success Factors with Operations on Activity numbers do not indicate
during Construction brownfield projects chronological execution order.
Phase Timing:
5 HS #14 E 11 EML E = Early, M = Mid, L = Late
Identify and integrate Review and
key O&M personnel and supplement CSU
supporting organizations staff competencies

6 EML
Assess and
communicate CSU
effects from changes
B. Materials/Eqpt./

12 EML 14 (53) HS #1 E 28 M 30 HS #15 ML

Witness, track, and Witness, track, and Familiarize Operations
Components

Mobilize CSU
document factory document site acceptance personnel with eqpt.
resources and facilities and integration tests
acceptance tests during FAT or on-site

13 HS #9 E 15 (60, 85) HS #2 E 29 ML
Perform preservation Complete and document
Procure CSU materials, individual equipment tests
including spare parts through fabrication and
(e.g., cold alignment,
construction megger testing)

16 E 18 EML 31 HS #3 M 34 ML 42 L 45 HS #8 L
C. Subsystems/Systems/
Interconnecting Systems

Identify Operations’ Transition to CSU Align on product and For brownfield projects, Complete collab. inspection
Hook up modules system-based execution execute the plan for walkthru of tags/systems by
responsible contact system performance
(from area- or physical tie-ins to Commissioning mgr, constr.
for each system discipline-based)
requirements existing plant systems contractor, and Operations

17 EML 32 HS #10 M 35 (74) ML 43 L 46 L

Monitor Confirm availability of Complete pneumatic Apply and verify check Transition lock-out/tag-out
construction activities utilities needed for or hydro testing of sheets for construction from Construction to
that affect CSU Pre-Commissioning and
piping (weld integrity) quality control Pre-Commissioning
Commissioning

33 HS #4 ML 44 L
Perform cleaning,
Conduct point-to-point
passivation, and drying
of piping and ducts (incl. cable continuity checks
steam blowing, pigging)

19 HS #12 EM 23 EML 36 ML 39 ML 47 HS #5 L
Define system Update Construction Manage Identify and communicate
Monitor systems constr. punch list items
construction turnover documents based on construction quality
D. Data/Documentation/Audits

completion progress critical for Pre-Comm’g,

packages Design changes control check sheets
Comm’g, and Startup

20 EML 24 EML 37 HS #19 ML 40 ML

and Certifications

Electronically file Resolve Finalize approval of Verify receipt of req’d data

commissioning non-conformance Commissioning operation and documentation for
documents for record reports (NCRs) construction completion
test procedures certificates

21 EML 25 EML 38 ML 41 ML
Execute related req’ts, Confirm regulator/ Conduct systems Transfer of custody
procedures, and assoc’d third-party verification of completion readiness and predefined
documentation for system safety-critical systems review turnover package
certific’ns and verifications

22 EML 26 EML
Execute the Review project-specific
asset data safety plans with focus
management plan on CSU transitions

Figure 7. CCSU Activity Flowchart:

Phase 1: Construction

16
 3. Findings

2. Pre-Commissioning Phase
Early Mid Late

48 E 51 EML Legend
Conduct Identify and track
Pre-Commissioning open change Activity Hot Spot Phase
A. Planning/Schedule/
Management/Staffing

alignment meeting management list items number number Timing

Activity Name
49 E 52 EML
Conduct
Comm’g-specific HSSE Close out identified
training for LOTO, JSA, punch list items
simult. ops., work requests A colored background signifies that
this is a Hot Spot.
50 E Activity numbers do not indicate
Coordinate system chronological execution order.
automation readiness re: Phase Timing:
req’ts, scope, sequence,
E = Early, M = Mid, L = Late
schedule, and software

53 (14) HS #1 E 58 E 67 M
Mobilize resources for Complete lubrication Conduct
Pre-Commissioning, and lubrication vessel and tank
including necessary inspections
check sheets
SMEs and third parties
B. Materials/Equipment/Components

54 E 59 EM 68 M
Verify the operation of Verify functionality of all Execute component funct’l
all protection devices gas and fire detection, tests for switchgear,
protection, and breakers, transformers,
and safety interlocks extinguishment systems motor control centers

55 E 60 (15, 85) HS #2 EML 69 M

Verify all Perform Verify instrumentation
instrument functionality, including
preservation during diagnostics and
calibration Pre-Commissioning equipment alerts

56 E 61 EML 70 M
Manage Verify manual opening,
Commissioning and Perform energized
closing, sealing, and
Startup spares equipment tests
operation of valves

57 E
Check all rotating
equipment (including
correct rotation)
D. Data/Documentation/ C. Subsystems/Systems/
Audits and Certifications Interconnecting Systems

62 E 71 ML 73 L
Apply and verify Conduct system Verify automation
Pre-Commissioning
check sheets for software functions,
walk-downs with client
Pre-Commissioning prior to Commissioning human-machine interface

63 HS #16 EM 72 ML 74 (35) L
Conduct loop checks “First fill” (e.g., utility Complete pressure
and input/output (I/O) fluids); loading of catalyst, containment/flange integrity
point-to-point checks desiccants, polishers (leak) test (post-hydro test)

64 E 66 EML 75 L
Complete pre-functional Verify completion of req’d
Update as-built data, documentation,
checklists and issue drawing issue turnover for
power-on requests Comm’g certificates

65 EML
Identify and track
Pre-Commissioning
punch list items

Figure 7. CCSU Activity Flowchart (continued):

Phase 2: Pre-Commissioning

17
3. Findings

3. Commissioning Phase
Early Mid Late

76 E 79 EML 91 M 97 L 98 L
Conduct Move team to Review, revise,
Commissioning
Perform site Perform pre-Startup
work-shift and approve Startup
safety audits safety review
A. Planning/Schedule/
Management/Staffing

alignment meeting management role procedures as needed

77 E 80 EML 92 ML
Develop Conduct
Approve initial
Maintenance operator/maintenance
Startup procedures
information and plan training

78 E
Develop O&M Legend
procedure and
training materials Activity Hot Spot Phase
number number Timing

Activity Name
81 E 84 EML 93 M
Mobilize Mobilize Run-in of rotating
Commissioning Startup equipment including
B. Materials/Equipment/

coupled testing of
resources resources A colored background signifies that
rotation equipment
this is a Hot Spot.
Components

Activity numbers do not indicate

82 E 85 (15, 60) HS #2 EML
chronological execution order.
Perform Perform preservation
Phase Timing:
function tests through
E = Early, M = Mid, L = Late
Commissioning

83 EM
Run diagnostic checks
on required valves
and instruments
C. Subsystems/Systems/
Interconnecting Systems

86 E 88 EML 94 HS #17 ML 99 L 101 L

Test and commission Execute integrated Conduct system
emergency shutdown operational dynamic test Purge non-process Introduce process
systems, including procedures and begin to walk-downs for fluids chemicals
safety interlocks execute Comm’g plan turnovers

87 EML 100 L
Introduce
Place non-process
Commissioning
utilities into operation
materials and fluids

89 EML 90 EML 95 ML 102 L 105 L

D. Data/Documentation/Audits

Produce, witness, and Complete Gather and Conduct assurance

Update as-built audits (per insurance
track Commissioning Commissioning organize asset
drawing and/or regulatory
punch list items punch list management data requirements)
and Certifications

96 ML 103 L 106 L
Gather and complete Issue statement of
Conduct internal fitness for service, with
system turnover pre-Startup audit all assurance sign-offs;
documentation hand over to Operations

104 L
Conduct integrity
verification
(per insurance and/or
regulatory requirements)

Figure 7. CCSU Activity Flowchart (continued):

Phase 3: Commissioning

18
 3. Findings

4. Startup Phase
5. Close-out Phase
Early Mid Late
A. Planning/Schedule/

107 E 117 119

Management/Staffing

Conduct Startup Verify spares, training,

Conduct Close-out O&M procedures, and
alignment meeting alignment meeting planned maintenance
routines

108 EML 118 HS #18

Monitor CSU Verify closure of
key performance HAZOP action items
indicators
B. Materials/Equipment/
Components

109 HS #13 EML

Initiate Maintenance
procedures
Legend

Activity Hot Spot Phase

number number Timing

Activity Name

110 E 114 M 115 L

Produce first test Turn on
Verify analyzer/ modeling/optimizers A colored background signifies that
product for property/
C. Subsystems/Systems/
Interconnecting Systems

process analytics if applicable this is a Hot Spot.

characteristics testing
Activity numbers do not indicate
chronological execution order.
111 E Phase Timing:
Introduce E = Early, M = Mid, L = Late
process materials

112 EML
Conduct performance
testing, including
tuning, ramp-up and
reliability testing

113 E 116 L 120 123

Verify achievement of Complete Document and
D. Data/Documentation/Audits

Conduct operational performance guarantees facility acceptance and

readiness review align on any remaining communicate CSU
and regulatory
requirements punch list items lessons learned
and Certifications

121 HS #7 124
Assure correctness and Issue final
completeness of as-built,
commissioned drawings, close-out report
documentation

122
Finalize
documentation,
including revisions

Figure 7. CCSU Activity Flowchart (continued):

Phase 4: Startup and Phase 5: Project Close-out

19
3. Findings

CCSU Organizational Functions and RACI Matrix

As previously discussed, one of the primary objectives of the RT-333 research

was to gain a better understanding of responsibility assignments as they pertain to
construction/commissioning transition efforts. Three prerequisites were needed to
accomplish that goal:

1. Understanding the project’s CSU contracting/delivery strategy

2. Establishing common CCSU scopes of work (as depicted in the CCSU

activity flowchart)

3. Developing a structure of the organizational functions that typically support

capital project CCSU efforts.

With this information in-hand, RT-333 proceeded to determine typical or common RACI
assignments for each of the 124 CCSU activities.

The RACI assignments pertain to four key different roles for each activity in the CCSU
flowchart: Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and Informed (RACI, collectively).
Responsible individuals are charged with executing and completing the assigned
activity. Accountable individuals (for which there is only one per activity) are charged
with ensuring that the activity is completed to a satisfactory level. Consulted assignments
provide input for execution of the activity, while Informed assignments are essentially
“customers” or recipients of the activity’s end-results.

In order to determine the RACI assignments, the RT-333 members conducted multiple,
in-depth discussions for each of the 124 CCSU activities. In addition, external reviewers
provided additional review and input into the Responsible and Accountable assignments
for four key CCSU roles: Project manager, Construction manager, Commissioning
manager, and Operations manager.

A portion of the completed RACI Matrix is provided in Figure 8, and a summary

tally of RACI assignments for each organizational function is provided in Table 1. The
complete RACI Matrix is provided in a separate Microsoft Excel file. (See the Executive
Summary for downloading directions.)

20
 Leadership Functions CSU Core Technical Functions

Name

Name

CSU Core Technical Functions

17 Transportation/Materials Handling Systems

26 Fire Protection, Alarm System, Suppression

Leadership Functions
4 Contracting & Procurement Management

24 Process/Operations Safety Management

7 Commissioning/Startup Management
CII RT 333 - CCSU RACI Matrix

6 Operations Readiness Management

22 Software Reliability Engineering

Key Assumption: Greenfield Project

28 CSU SMEs/Engineering Support

21 Telecommunications/Networks
9 Plant Operations Management

27 System Commissioning Teams

20 Instrumentation & Controls
8 Business Unit Management

23 3D Model/BIM/Smart P&ID
5 Construction Management

11 Project Director/Executive
3 Engineering Management

10 Project Leadership Team

13 Mechanical/Machinery
2 Project Management

18 Module Fabricators

25 Life Safety Systems

1 HSE Management
R = Responsible

19 Automation/DCS
A = Accountable
C = Consulted

16 Electrical
12 Process

14 Piping
I = nformed

15 HVAC
#
#

Project Close-out
117 Conduct Close-out Alignment meeting I RA I I C I C I R I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
118 HS #18 Verify closure of HAZOP action items C A R I I C
Verify spares, training, O&M procedures, and planned
Project Close-out

119 A C C R
maintenance routines
Complete facility acceptance and align on any punch list
120 A I I I I C
items remaining
HS #7 Assure correctness & completeness of as-built,
121 A R I R
commissioned drawings and documentation
122 Finalize Documentation, including revisions RA R I I
123 Document and communicate CSU Lessons Learned C RA C C C C R I C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C
124 Issue final close-out report C RA C C C C C C C C C I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
Responsible - 4 3 - - - 1 - 1 - - 9 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 - 2
Subtotals

Accountable - 8 - - - - - - - - - 8 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0
Consulted 3 - 2 2 3 2 3 1 4 2 2 24 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 18
Informed 1 - 2 1 1 1 2 5 2 1 1 17 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 34

Figure 8. Detail of the CCSU RACI Matrix

3. Findings
21
 3. Findings
22

Table 1. CCSU RACI Assignment Frequency by Organizational Function

R A C I Leadership Functions R A C I Administrative Support Functions

5 2 14 22 1. HSE Management 1 – 4 7 32. Change and Configuration Management
8 40 6 36 2. Project Management – – 1 8 33. CSU/Operations Logistics and Infrastructure
11 1 18 16 3. Engineering Management – – 4 9 34. Legal/Insurance/Finance
1 1 6 4 4. Contracting and Procurement Management 3 – 4 10 35. Permitting
16 16 16 12 5. Construction Management – – 2 7 36. Public Affairs
12 – 15 18 6. Operations Readiness Management – – 9 11 37. Regulatory Compliance
49 39 20 12 7. Commissioning and Startup Management – – 4 9 38. CSU Personnel Coordination (Staffing)
1 2 2 15 8. Business Unit Management – – 2 66 39. CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and Schedule
Control
15 22 26 15 9. Plant Operations Management
– 1 2 19 10. Project Leadership Team – – 3 8 40. CSU Cost Estimation and Controls

– – 2 6 11. Project Director/Executive R A C I Data/Documentation Functions

R A C I CSU Core Technical Functions 2 – 6 9 41. Project Information Management; Database
Management
– – 3 7 12. Process – – 6 7 42. Asset Management Technology Support
5 – 2 7 13. Mechanical/Machinery – – 2 66 43. Systems Completion Database and Support
3 – 2 7 14. Piping 2 – 3 11 44. As-builts, Records, Data, Models, Permits, Regulatory
– – 1 7 15. HVAC Data, … for Handover
2 – 3 6 16. Electrical – – 2 9 45. Technical Writers
– – 1 7 17. Transportation/Materials Handling Systems
R A C I Safety and Quality Functions
– – 1 7 18. Module Fabricators
3 – 13 20 46. HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination
5 – 7 7 19. Automation/DCS
– – 1 8 47. Security (site, personnel, cyber,…)
1 – 9 7 20. Instrumentation and Controls
1 – 4 11 48. LOTO/Permit–to–work
– – 3 7 21. Telecommunications/Networks
6 – 4 12 49. Punch–list/Turnover Coordination
– – 1 8 22. Software Reliability Engineering
2 – 16 13 50. Quality Assurance
1 – 1 7 23. 3D Model/BIM/Smart P&ID
4 – 10 10 51. Construction Quality Control (e.g., weld inspection,
1 – 12 9 24. Process/Operations Safety Management test materials, positive material identification)
– – 4 9 25. Life Safety Systems 1 – 4 14 52. Risk Management
– – 3 10 26. Fire Protection, Alarm System, Suppression – – 3 9 53. Product Quality
29 – 19 23 27. System Commissioning Teams
R A C I Materials and Equipment Functions
1 – 34 10 28. CSU SMEs/Engineering Support
4 – 28 13 54. OEM/Supplier
R A C I Initial Operations Functions – – 4 6 55. Procurement Expediting
16 – 23 20 29. Operations – – 4 6 56. Material Receipt/Verification
3 – 6 10 30. Operations and Maintenance Training – – 5 6 57. Warehouse/Storage Management
3 – 9 11 31. Maintenance 1 – 2 8 58. CSU Material Coordination
– – 4 6 59. Spares for Commissioning
3 – 5 8 60. Preservation
 3. Findings

As was discussed in Chapter 2, Methodology, the RACI assignments were based

on 60 common project organizational functions, rather than specific organizational roles
or titles, since those labels vary across the industry and could have been a source of
continual confusion. The 60 organizational functions relevant to the assignments were
organized in the following seven groupings (and in the order shown on the RACI matrix):
• Leadership functions (11 functions)
• CSU core technical functions (17)
• Initial operations functions (3)
• Administrative support functions (9)
• Data/documentation functions (5)
• Safety and quality functions (8)
• Materials/equipment functions (7)

Not surprisingly, the largest number of Responsible and/or Accountable assignments

pertained to four key organizational functions: Project management, Construction
management, Commissioning and Startup management, and Plant Operations
management. Specific findings on these assignments are discussed in the next section.

A project-specific RACI matrix should be reviewed and discussed by project team

members as part of Step 7 of the CCSU Implementation Process. (See Figure 7.) The
RACI Matrix (as provided) should be viewed as just a starting point (or “straw man”)
to serve as a basis for more in-depth project-specific discussions among project team
members and leadership. The ultimate objective is to have a set of RACI assignments
for which all project participants are in alignment. RACI tools are intended to be a
key device to help avoid any confusion regarding roles and responsibilities.

Four Critical Roles and their Responsible or Accountable Assignments

The RACI analysis indicated that there are four key roles pertaining to CCSU
transition management: Project manager, Construction manager, Commissioning/
Startup manager, and Operations manager. The distribution of Accountable (A) and
Responsible (R) assignments by phase for these four key roles is presented in Table 2.
While the Commissioning/Startup manager is generally responsible for 40% of the
CCSU activities, the three other key managers (Project, Construction, and Operations)
are collectively responsible for 31% of the activities.

23
 3. Findings
24

Table 2. Responsibility/Accountability Assignment Frequencies by Phase for Four Key Roles

Number of CCSU Activities by Phase

(A = Accountable, R = Responsible)
Totals
Leadership Role
(Function) Construction Pre-Commissioning Commissioning Startup Close-out

A R A R A R A R A R A R

Project Manager 15 1 8 1 8 1 1 1 8 4 40 8

Construction Manager 16 13 – 3 – – – – – – 16 16

Commissioning and
10 26 20 4 8 17 1 1 – 1 39 49
Startup Manager

Plant Operations
3 4 – – 12 8 7 2 – 1 22 15
Manager

Totals 44 44 28 8 28 26 9 4 8 6 117 88
 3. Findings

RT-333 reached the following key findings on Responsible and/or Accountable

assignments:
• Construction phase leadership seems to be evenly shared or distributed. The
Project and Construction managers share much of the Accountability, while
the Commissioning/Startup manager dominates Responsibility.
• Responsibility for Pre-Commissioning is split between the Construction
manager and the Commissioning/Startup manager.
• Commissioning phase leadership Accountability is dominated by the
Operations manager, while its Responsibility is dominated by the
Commissioning/Startup manager.
• The Project manager dominates both Accountability and Responsibility for the
Close-out phase.

The specific Accountable and Responsible activities assigned to these four managers
are presented in Tables 3 through 10.

25
3. Findings

Table 3. Project Management Function: Accountable Activities

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
#11 1. Conduct Construction-CSU alignment meeting on the execution plan

#20 2. Conduct Construction-CSU team building

4. Ensure CSU Critical Success Factors during Construction

7. Conduct area-specific health, safety, security, and environmental
training
8. Identify and manage CSU-related risks
9. Refine Startup integrated project schedule with adjustments from
risks and delays
#12 19. Define system construction turnover packages
Construction
22. Execute the asset data management plan
(n=15)
23. Update Construction documents based on Design changes

25. Confirm regulator or third-party verification of safety critical systems

#6 27. Plan for and manage CSU schedule recovery

31. Transition to CSU system-based execution (from area- or discipline-
#3
based)
32. Confirm availability of utilities needed for Pre-Commissioning and
#10
Commissioning
41. Transfer of custody and predefined turnover package
42. For brownfield projects, execute the plan for physical tie-ins to the
existing plant systems
48. Conduct Pre-Commissioning alignment meeting
49. Conduct Commissioning-specific HSSE training for lock-out/tag-out,
job safety analysis, simultaneous operations, and work requests
51. Identify and track open change management list items
53. Mobilize resources for Pre-Commissioning, including necessary
Pre- #1
SMEs and third-party participants
Commissioning
(n=8) 59. Verify functionality of all gas and fire detection, protection, and
extinguishment systems
#2 60. Perform preservation during Pre-Commissioning

66. Update as-built drawing

74. Complete pressure containment/flange integrity (leak) test (post-
hydro test)

26
 3. Findings

Table 3. Project Management Function: Accountable Activities (continued)

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
76. Conduct Commissioning alignment meeting

81. Mobilize Commissioning resources

#2 85. Perform Preservation through Commissioning

91. Perform pre-Startup safety review

Commissioning
(n=8)
#17 94. Conduct system walk-downs for turnovers

95. Complete Commissioning punch list

102. Gather and organize asset management data

103. Conduct internal pre-Startup audit

Startup
107. Conduct Startup alignment meeting
(n=1)
117. Conduct Close-out alignment meeting

#8 118. Verify closure of HAZOP action items

119. Verify spares, training, O&M procedures, and planned maintenance
routines
120. Complete facility acceptance and align on any remaining punch list
Close-out items
(n=8) 121. Assure correctness and completeness of as-built, commissioned
#7
drawings and documentation
122. Finalize documentation, including revisions

123. Document and communicate CSU lessons learned

124. Issue final close-out report

27
3. Findings

Table 4. Project Management Function: Responsible Activities

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
Construction
11. Review and supplement CSU staff competency
(n=1)
Pre-
Commissioning 48. Conduct Pre-Commissioning alignment meeting
(n=1)
Commissioning 106. Issue statement of fitness for service, with all assurance sign-offs;
(n=1) hand over to Operations
Startup
107. Conduct Startup alignment meeting
(n=1)

117. Conduct Close-out alignment meeting

122. Finalize documentation, including revisions

Close-out
(n=4)
123. Document and communicate CSU lessons learned

124. Issue final close-out report

28
 3. Findings

Table 5. Construction Management Function: Accountable Activities

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
#2 15. Perform preservation through fabrication and construction

18. Hook up modules

21. Execute related requirements, procedures, and associated
documentation for system certifications and verifications
24. Resolve non-conformance reports (NCRs)

28. Witness, track, and document site acceptance and integration tests
29. Complete and document individual equipment tests (e.g., cold
alignment, megger testing)
33. Perform cleaning, passivation, and drying of piping and ducts
#4
(including steam blowing and pigging)
35. Complete pneumatic or hydro testing of piping (weld integrity)
Construction
(n=16) 36. Monitor systems completion progress

38. Conduct systems completion readiness review

39. Manage construction quality control check sheets

40. Verify receipt of required data and documentation for construction
completion certificates
43. Apply and verify check sheets for construction quality control

44. Conduct point-to-point cable continuity checks

45. Complete collaborative inspection walkthrough of tags and systems
#8 by the Commissioning manager, construction contractor, and
Operations
47. Identify and communicate construction punch list items critical for
#5
Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup
Pre-
N/A
Commissioning

Commissioning N/A

Startup N/A

Close-out N/A

29
3. Findings

Table 6. Construction Management Function: Responsible Activities

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
#11 1. Conduct Construction-CSU alignment meeting on the execution plan

#20 2. Conduct Construction-CSU team building

4. Ensure CSU Critical Success Factors during Construction

8. Identify and manage CSU-related risks

18. Hook up modules

#12 19. Define system construction turnover packages

30. Familiarize Operations personnel with equipment during FAT or on-
Construction #15
site
(n=13)
31. Transition to CSU system-based execution (from area- or discipline-
#3
based)
32. Confirm availability of utilities needed for Pre-Commissioning and
#10
Commissioning
36. Monitor systems completion progress

41. Transfer of custody and predefined turnover package

42. For brownfield projects, execute the plan for physical tie-ins to the
existing plant systems
45. Complete collaborative inspection walkthrough of tags and systems
#8 by the Commissioning manager, construction contractor, and
Operations
48. Conduct Pre-Commissioning alignment meeting
Pre-
53. Mobilize resources for Pre-Commissioning, including necessary
Commissioning #1
SMEs and third-party participants
(n=3)
#2 60. Perform preservation during Pre-Commissioning

Commissioning N/A

Startup N/A

Close-out N/A

30
 3. Findings

Table 7. Commissioning and Startup Management Function: Accountable Activities

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
3. Complete system test matrix and agreement

6. Assess and communicate CSU effects from changes

10. Coordinate CSU plans with Operations on brownfield projects

11. Review and supplement CSU staff competency

Construction #9 13. Procure CSU materials, including spare parts

(n=10) #1 14. Mobilize CSU resources and facilities

17. Monitor Construction activities that affect CSU

20. Electronically file Commissioning documents for record

26. Review project-specific safety plans with a focus on CSU transitions

#19 37. Finalize approval of Commissioning operation test procedures

50. Coordinate system automation readiness relative to requirements,
scope, sequence, schedule, and software
52. Close out identified punch list items

54. Verify the operation of all protection devices and safety interlocks

55. Verify all instrument calibration

56. Manage Commissioning and Startup spares

57. Check all rotating equipment (Including correct rotation)

58. Complete lubrication and lubrication check sheets

61. Perform energized equipment tests

62. Apply and verify check sheets for Pre-Commissioning

#16 63. Conduct loop checks and input/output (I/O) point-to-point checks
Pre-
Commissioning 64. Complete pre-functional checklists and issue power-on requests
(n=20)
65. Identify and track Pre-Commissioning punch list items
67. Conduct vessel/tank inspections
68. Execute component functional tests for switchgear, breakers,
transformers, and motor control centers
69. Verify instrumentation functionality, including diagnostics and
equipment alerts
70. Verify manual opening, closing, sealing, and operation of valves
71. Conduct system Pre-Commissioning walk-downs with client, prior to
Commissioning
72. “First fill” (e.g., utility fluids); loading of catalyst, desiccants, polishers,
and so on
73. Verify automation software functions and human-machine interface
75. Verify completion of required data, documentation, and issue
turnover for Commissioning certificates

31
3. Findings

Table 7. Commissioning and Startup Management Function: Accountable Activities

(continued)
Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
82. Perform function tests

83. Run diagnostic checks on required valves and instruments

86. Test and commission emergency shutdown systems, including safety
interlocks
87. Introduce Commissioning materials and fluids
Commissioning
(n=8) 88. Execute integrated operational dynamic test procedures and begin to
execute commissioning plan
89. Produce, witness, and track commissioning punch list items
93. Run in rotating equipment including coupled testing of rotation
equipment
96. Gather and complete system turnover documentation

Startup
108. Monitor CSU key performance indicators
(n=1)

Close-out N/A

32
 3. Findings

Table 8. Commissioning and Startup Management Function: Responsible Activities

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
#11 1. Conduct Construction-CSU alignment meeting on the execution plan

#20 2. Conduct Construction-CSU team building

3. Complete system test matrix and agreement

4. Ensure CSU Critical Success Factors during Construction

6. Assess and communicate CSU effects from changes

8. Identify and manage CSU-related risks

9. Refine Startup integrated project schedule with adjustments from
risks and delays
10. Coordinate CSU plans with Operations on brownfield projects

11. Review and supplement CSU staff competency

12. Witness, track, and document factory acceptance tests

#1 14. Mobilize CSU resources and facilities

#2 15. Perform preservation through Fabrication and Construction

17. Monitor Construction activities that affect CSU

Construction
#12 19. Define system construction turnover packages
(n=26)
21. Execute related requirements, procedures, and associated
documentation for system certifications and verifications
22. Execute the asset data management plan

#6 27. Plan for and manage CSU schedule recovery

28. Witness, track, and document site acceptance and integration tests
30. Familiarize Operations personnel with equipment during FAT or on-
#15
site
31. Transition to CSU system-based execution (from area- or discipline-
#3
based)
34. Align on product and system performance requirements

38. Conduct systems completion readiness review

40. Verify receipt of required data and documentation for construction
completion certificates
45. Complete collaborative inspection walkthrough of tags and systems
#8 by the Commissioning manager, construction contractor, and
Operations
46. Transition lock-out/tag-out from Construction to Pre-Commissioning
47. Identify and communicate construction punch list items critical for
#5
Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup

33
3. Findings

Table 8. Commissioning and Startup Management Function: Responsible Activities

(continued)
Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
49. Conduct Commissioning-specific HSSE training for lock-out/tag-out,
job safety analysis, simultaneous operations, and work requests
53. Mobilize resources for Pre-Commissioning, including necessary
Pre- #1
SMEs and third-party participants
Commissioning
(n=4) 66. Update as-built drawing

74. Complete pressure containment/flange integrity (leak) test (post-

hydro test)

76. Conduct Commissioning alignment meeting

77. Approve initial Startup procedures

81. Mobilize Commissioning resources

84. Mobilize Startup resources

#2 85. Perform Preservation through Commissioning

91. Perform pre-Startup safety review

93. Run in rotating equipment including coupled testing of rotation

equipment

#17 94. Conduct system walk-downs for turnovers

Commissioning
95. Complete Commissioning punch list
(n=17)

97. Move team to work-shift management role

98. Review, revise, and approve Startup procedures as needed

99. Purge non-process fluids

100. Place non-process utilities into operation

101. Introduce process chemicals

102. Gather and organize asset management data

103. Conduct internal pre-Startup audit

106. Issue statement of fitness for service, with all assurance sign-offs;
hand over to Operations
Startup
107. Conduct Startup alignment meeting
(n=1)
Close-out
123. Document and communicate CSU lessons learned
(n=1)

34
 3. Findings

Table 9. Operations Management Function: Accountable Activities

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot
5. Identify and integrate key Operations & Maintenance personnel and
#14
supporting organizations
Construction
16. Identify Operations’ responsible contact for each system
(n=3)
30. Familiarize Operations personnel with equipment during FAT or on-
#15
site
Pre-
N/A
Commissioning

77. Approve initial Startup procedures

78. Develop Operations & Maintenance procedure and training materials

80. Develop maintenance information and plan

84. Mobilize Startup resources

92. Conduct operator/maintenance training

97. Move team to work-shift management role

Commissioning
(n=12)
98. Review, revise, and approve Startup procedures as needed

99. Purge non-process fluids

100. Place non-process utilities into operation

101. Introduce process chemicals

104. Conduct integrity verification ( per insurance and/or regulatory

requirements)
105. Conduct assurance audits (per insurance and/or regulatory
requirements)

#13 109. Initiate Maintenance procedures

110. Verify analyzer/process analytics

111. Introduce process materials

Startup 112. Conduct performance testing, including tuning, ramp-up, and

(n=7) reliability testing

113. Conduct operational readiness review

114. Produce first test product for property/characteristics testing

115. Turn on modeling/optimizers if applicable

Close-out N/A

35
3. Findings

Table 10. Operations Management Function: Responsible Activities

Hot
Phase Activity
Spot

10. Coordinate CSU plans with Operations on brownfield projects

16. Identify Operations’ responsible contact for each system

Construction
(n=4) 42. For brownfield projects, execute the plan for physical tie-ins to the
existing plant systems
47. Identify and communicate Construction punch list items critical for
#5
Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup
Pre-
N/A
Commissioning

80. Develop maintenance information and plan

84. Mobilize Startup resources

91. Perform pre-Startup safety review

97. Move team to work-shift management role

Commissioning
(n=8)
99. Purge non-process fluids

100. Place non-process utilities into operation

103. Conduct internal pre-Startup audit

106. Issue statement of fitness for service, with all assurance sign-offs;
hand over to Operations

113. Conduct operational readiness review

Startup
(n=2) 116. Verify achievement of performance guarantees and regulatory
requirements
Close-out
117. Conduct Close-out Alignment meeting
(n=1)

Companion Electronic Files

Two separate companion electronic files are available with this publication:
• PDF file: CCSU Activity Flowchart and Hot Spots
• Microsoft Excel file: CCSU RACI Matrix

(See the Executive Summary for downloading instructions.)

36
 3. Findings

CCSU Hot Spots

Overview of CCSU Hot Spots

As discussed in the Methodology section, CCSU “hot spots” were sought out to
better understand common challenges, weaknesses, and/or threats pertaining to CCSU
transition efforts. Both RT member opinion and wider industry survey-based opinion were
used to screen the listing down to the 20 seemingly most-problematic CCSU activities.
A summary listing of these and the relative timing of occurrence are shown below in
Table 11. Interestingly, or perhaps even surprisingly, 15 of the 20 (75%) occur during the
Construction phase. This suggests that greater attention and effort are needed during
Construction if Commissioning and Startup are to be successful.

Characterization of Hot Spots

Since the CCSU hot spots represent opportunities for enhanced performance
from more focused planning and execution efforts, a greater understanding of them is
warranted. Accordingly, each of the 20 CCSU hot spots has been described in detail
with the following fields of information:
• Hot spot number, name, description, version number, and number of source
contributors
• Flowchart activity number
• Timing
• Project context and/or example scenario(s)
• Alleged common deficiencies
• Causal factors
• Qualitative impacts and/or threats to success
• Prevention and/or mitigation strategies
• RACI assignments
• CSU critical success factors and indicators of achievement

A sample hot spot characterization is presented in Figure 9. See Appendix C for

complete descriptive characterizations of all 20 hot spots. An analysis of trends in hot
spot impacts, causal factors, and prevention/mitigation strategies is presented in a
subsequent section.

37
3. Findings

Table 11. Common CCSU Hot Spots

CCSU Hot Spots Timing

#1 Mobilize resources and facilities for Pre-Commissioning,
Early Construction
including necessary SMEs and third-party participants
#2 Perform preservation through all phases and execute the
Early Construction
equipment preservation plan
#3 Transition to CSU system-based execution (from area- or
Mid-Construction
discipline-based)
#4 Perform cleaning, passivation, and drying of piping and ducts
Mid-Construction
(including steam blowing and pigging)
#5 Identify and communicate Construction punch list items critical
Late Construction
for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup

#6 Plan for and manage CSU schedule recovery Mid-Construction

#7 Assure correctness and completeness of as-built,

Project Close-out
commissioned drawings and documentation
#8 Complete collaborative inspection walkthrough of tags and
systems by the Commissioning manager, the construction Late Construction
contractor, and Operations

#9 Procure CSU materials, including spare parts Early Construction

#10 Confirm availability of utilities needed for Pre-Commissioning

Mid-Construction
and Commissioning
#11 Conduct Construction-CSU alignment meeting on the
Early Construction
execution plan

#12 Define system construction turnover packages Early Construction

#13 Initiate maintenance procedures Early Startup

#14 Identify and integrate key Operations & Maintenance personnel

Early Construction
and supporting organizations
#15 Familiarize operations personnel with equipment during FAT or
Mid-Construction
on-site
#16 Conduct loop checks and input/output (I/O) point-to-point Early Pre-
checks Commissioning

#17 Conduct system walk-downs for turnovers Mid-Commissioning

#18 Verify closure of HAZOP action items Project Close-out

#19 Finalize approval of Commissioning operation test procedures Mid-Construction

#20 Conduct Construction-CSU team building Early Construction

38
 3. Findings

Figure 9. Sample Hot Spot Characterization

Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

Resources and Facilities for Pre-Commissioning

Mobilize resources and facilities for Pre-Commissioning, including necessary
SMEs and third-party participants

Flowchart Activity # 14, 53

Timing
Construction: Early (Activity #14)
Pre-Commissioning: Early (Activity #53)

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• Most projects today do not conduct on-site instrumentation/control valve bench tests,
set-ups, and functional checks with wrenches and screwdrivers. The same work is
now done with software (AMS) diagnostics in Pre-Commissioning or Commissioning
by an SME. This important work cannot be skipped over. Failure to mobilize these
resources in a timely fashion (whether due to cost-cutting, schedule-cutting, or for any
other reason) will cost far more in schedule and budget during Startup.
• Technology today for new plants includes smart equipment with self-diagnostic tests
and checks available to SMEs for quick verification during Pre-Commissioning or
Commissioning. At least 98% of projects now buy and install this new capability;
however, few take full advantage of it.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Timing the mobilization of CSU resources and personnel correctly is difficult, and often
occurs too late.
• Vendors and SMEs are not involved enough because of cost-cutting and the extra
coordination required.
• It is difficult to persuade project managers of the necessity of staffing a few
Commissioning personnel no later than full execution funding.
• Startup personnel do not have a complete understanding of the process design.
• Too few experienced personnel are on site at the time of Pre-Commissioning,
Commissioning, and Startup.

Causal Factors
• Vendors and SMEs are not sufficiently involved in Commissioning because of cost-
cutting.
• Commissioning is not well understood by most in industry. This lack of understanding
often causes unreasonable time constraints and cost pressures to be imposed on
Commissioning.
• Since Commissioning always occurs at the end of a project, it inherits the leftover
budget, schedule, and execution problems from all previous work.

39
3. Findings

Figure 9. Sample Hot Spot Characterization (continued)

Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

Causal Factors (continued)

• Commissioning is not treated as a stand-alone discipline, and thus gets subordinated
to construction.
• Startup personnel are often brought in from other facilities because of staffing
constraints.
• Extreme winter working conditions and remote job sites can make it difficult to mobilize
resources (human and other).

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Lack of timely Vendor/SME support ends up costing more than was saved by not hiring
them. Doing verification testing right the first time with an SME/Vendor present is
cheaper than doing it wrong and being delayed. An SME may be needed to help solve
the problem in the end anyway.
• Commissioning without proper staff/resource support will result in a frustrated,
overworked Commissioning team that is forced to respond to emergencies, rather than
preventing them. Even if construction finished on time or ahead of schedule, that time
will be lost during extended commissioning. These working conditions will lead to more
mistakes.
• Lack of necessary resources will lead to delays in Startup.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Allocate appropriate budget for successful commissioning, especially for the timely
inclusion of SMEs and vendors.
• Educate company executives and estimators on the importance of commissioning, as
well as the schedule and budget requirements for successful commissioning.
• Create a fully integrated construction-commissioning schedule with system-based
milestones.
• Development of a vendor/SME plan including a schedule and regular updates.
• If the construction schedule slides, do not reduce the scheduled time for
Commissioning. This will only result in further delay because of rushed Commissioning.
• Identify and involve the Commissioning team in the Design phase, giving them
adequate time to review the scope of commissioning, and plan for staffing accordingly.
• Involve Startup personnel in the pre-Startup safety review.
• Commissioning and Startup personnel should not report to the construction contractor,
but rather to the project manager.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technology [CII 2015]: Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation.

40
 3. Findings

Figure 9. Sample Hot Spot Characterization (continued)

Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: CSU Personnel Coordination (Staffing); CSU SMEs/Engineering Support

Informed: HSE Management; Project Management; Construction Management;

Plant Operations Management; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination;
Security (e.g., site, personnel, cyber); Systems Completions Database
and Support; CSU Cost Estimation and Controls; CSU Planning,
Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #1
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

1. CSU Value 1.1 CSU manager is on the project organizational chart at the start of
Recognition front end engineering.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been
3. Adequate
derived from knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if
Funding for CSU
needed CSU resources, not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews,
Construction engineered equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and
schedules.

5.1 A CSU manager was assigned at the start of front end engineering
and remained with the project through to initial operations.
5. CSU Leadership
Continuity
5.2 The qualifications and the planned tenure of the CSU manager were
well-defined by early front end engineering.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well

understood among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and
Capability
the technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

41
3. Findings

Hot Spots and the CSU Critical Success Factors

RT-312, a prior CII research team, focused on commissioning best practices

and identified CSU critical success factors (CSFs) and their associated indicators of
achievement. Desiring to strengthen the focus on these CSFs, RT-333 identified the
links or associations between the CSFs and the 20 CCSU hot spots.

Table 12 maps the links between the 16 commissioning CSFs (shown here with
abbreviated labels, but listed more fully in Appendix D) and the 20 CCSU hot spots.
Three CSFs stand out as key responsive strategies for a large number of hot spots:
• CSF 4: Alignment among Owner PM, Operations, CSU, Engineering,
and Construction
(17 hot spots)
• CSF 9: Detailed CSU Execution Plan
(10 hot spots)
• CSF 11: Definition of CSU Check-sheets, Procedures, and Tools
(10 hot spots).

The row totals in Table 12 indicate that each hot spot can be prevented by or
mitigated with between one and eight CSFs. Thus, hot spots and CSFs do not exist
in isolation of each other.

Tables 13, 14, and 15 identify which specific hot spots would benefit most from these
CSFs. These findings underscore the importance of alignment efforts, effective
execution planning, and accurate, timely CSU check-sheets and procedures in
preventing CCSU hot spots.

42
 3. Findings

Table 12. Links between CCSU Hot Spots and CSU Critical Success Factors

Critical Success Factors

10. Detailed Design Systems

16. Collaborative Turnover

15. Transition to Systems
5. Leadership Continuity
2. Brownfield Interfaces

7. Systems Engineering

13. Integrated Schedule

14. As-built Information

6. Acceptance Criteria

9. Execution Planning
1. Value Recognition

8. Sequence Drivers

12. Team Capability

11. Check-sheets
4. Alignment
3. Funding
Hot Spots Total
#1 Resources and
Facilities/
x x x x x 5
Pre-Commissioning
Resources
#2 Preservation x x x x x 5
#3 System-based
x x x x x 5
Execution
#4 Cleaning and Drying x x x 3

#5 Punch List x x x 3

#6 Schedule Recovery x x x x 4

#7 As-built Drawings x 1
#8 Inspection
x x x x 4
Walkthrough
#9 Procure Materials x x x x 4

#10 Utilities x x x x x x x x 8

#11 Kickoff Alignment x x x x x x x 7

#12 Construction
x x x x x 5
Turnover Packages
#13 Start Maintenance x x x x 4

#14 O&M Involvement x x x x 4

#15 Familiarize
x x x x 4
Operations
#16 Loop and I/O Checks x x x x 4

#17 System Walk-downs x x x x x 5

#18 HAZOP Closure x x x x 4

#19 Operation Test
x x x 3
Procedures
#20 Team Building x x x x 4

Total 2 3 6 17 2 4 2 5 10 2 10 7 5 3 4 4 86

43
3. Findings

Table 13. Hot Spots that Benefit from Alignment (CSF #4)

CSF #4: Alignment among Owner PM, Operations, CSU, Engineering, and Construction
(from IR312-2, Achieving Success in the Commissioning and Startup of Capital Projects,
Volume I: Best Practices for Commissioning and Startup)

Hot Spot Timing Hot Spot Activity #

#1 Mobilize resources and facilities for Pre-Commissioning,

14, 53
including necessary SMEs and third-party participants
#2 Perform preservation through all phases and execute the
15, 60, 85
equipment preservation plan

#9 Procure CSU materials, including spare parts 13

#11 Conduct Construction-CSU alignment meeting on the

Early Construction 1
execution plan

#12 Define system construction turnover packages 19

#14 Identify and integrate key Operations & Maintenance

5
personnel and supporting organizations

#20 Conduct Construction-CSU team building 2

#3 Transition to CSU system-based execution (from area- or

31
discipline-based)
#10 Confirm availability of utilities needed for Pre-
32
Commissioning and Commissioning
Mid-Construction
#15 Familiarize Operations personnel with equipment during
30
FAT or on-site
#19 Finalize approval of Commissioning operation test
37
procedures
#5 Identify and communicate Construction punch list items
critical for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and 47
Startup
Late Construction
#8 Complete collaborative inspection walkthrough of tags
and systems by the Commissioning manager, the 45
construction contractor, and Operations
Early #16 Conduct loop checks and input/output (I/O) point-to-
63
Pre-Commissioning point checks

Mid-Commissioning #17 Conduct system walk-downs for turnovers 94

Early Startup #13 Initiate maintenance procedures 109

Project Close-out #18 Verify closure of HAZOP action items 118

44
 3. Findings

Table 14. Hot Spots that Benefit from an Execution Plan (CSF #9)

CSF #9: Detailed CSU Execution Plan

(from IR312-2, Achieving Success in the Commissioning and Startup of Capital Projects,
Volume I: Best Practices for Commissioning and Startup)

Hot Spot Timing Hot Spot Activity #

#9 Procure CSU materials, including spare parts 13

#11 Conduct Construction-CSU alignment meeting on the

Early Construction 1
execution plan

#20 Conduct Construction-CSU team building 2

#3 Transition to CSU system-based execution (from area- or

31
discipline-based)
#10 Confirm availability of utilities needed for Pre-
32
Commissioning and Commissioning
Mid-Construction
#15 Familiarize Operations personnel with equipment during
30
FAT or on-site
#19 Finalize approval of Commissioning operation test
37
procedures
Early #16 Conduct loop checks and input/output (I/O) point-to-
63
Pre-Commissioning point checks

Mid-Commissioning #17 Conduct system walk-downs for turnovers 94

Early Startup #13 Initiate maintenance procedures 109

45
3. Findings

Table 15. Hot Spots that Benefit from Check-sheets and Procedures (CSF #11)

CSF #11: CSU Check-Sheets, Procedures, and Tools

(from IR312-2, Achieving Success in the Commissioning and Startup of Capital Projects,
Volume I: Best Practices for Commissioning and Startup)

Hot Spot Timing Hot Spot Activity #

#2 Perform preservation through all phases and execute the

15, 60, 85
equipment preservation plan
Early Construction
#12 Define system construction turnover packages 19

#4 Perform cleaning, passivation, and drying of piping and

31
ducts (including steam blowing and pigging)
Mid-Construction
#19 Finalize approval of Commissioning operation test
37
procedures
#5 Identify and communicate Construction punch list items
critical for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and 47
Startup
Late Construction
#8 Complete collaborative inspection walkthrough of tags
and systems by the Commissioning manager, the 45
construction contractor, and Operations
Early #16 Conduct loop checks and input/output (I/O) point-to-
63
Pre-Commissioning point checks

Mid-Commissioning #17 Conduct system walk-downs for turnovers 94

Early Startup #13 Initiate maintenance procedures 109

Project Close-out #18 Verify closure of HAZOP action items 118

46
 3. Findings

Hot Spot Trends Analysis: Impacts, Causal Factors, and Strategies

RT-333 analyzed the hot spot impacts, causal factors, and prevention/mitigation
strategies for all 20 hot spots to isolate any for any trends or alignments of opinion.

With respect to the impacts from failed hot spots, the following trends were observed:
• Nineteen hot spot failures (95%) commonly result in CSU schedule delays.
• Sixteen hot spot failures (80%) commonly result in increased CSU cost.
• Seven hot spot failures commonly result in increased health/safety/
environment risk.
• Seven hot spot failures commonly result in increased downtime and/or
decreased production post-startup.
• Seven hot spot failures commonly result in deteriorating relationships
between project delivery organizations.

With respect to hot spot causal factors, the following trends were observed:
• Eleven hot spots (55%) may result from roles and responsibilities that are
either unclear or unbalanced.
• Ten hot spots (50%) may result from a staffing problem, including lack of
sufficient relevant experience.
• Nine hot spots may result from unreasonable time and/or budget constraints
or pressure.
• Eight hot spots may result from lack of alignment between two or more
different parties.

Regarding recommended hot spot prevention and mitigation strategies, the following
trends were observed:
• Thirteen hot spots (65%) require greater alignment efforts (on a variety of
CCSU issues).
• Twelve hot spots (60%) can be prevented or mitigated with one or more of the
innovative commissioning technologies identified and characterized by RT-312.
• Eleven hot spots (55%) require a greater understanding of detailed CCSU
requirements.
• Ten hot spots (50%) require more timely involvement of Operations and/or
Maintenance personnel.
• Nine hot spots require more thorough CCSU documentation.
• Seven hot spots require more effective and/or timely involvement of subject
matter experts (SMEs) and/or original equipment manufacturers (OEMs).

47
3. Findings

Heidelberg Spar Illustrative Case Study

Objective

This illustrative case study focuses on the

Hook-up and Commissioning (HUC) effort for
the Heidelberg Spar project constructed in
the Gulf of Mexico. (A spar is a type of deep-
water offshore platform for oil production.)
The purpose of the case study was to
highlight the application of CCSU hot spots
(as characterized by RT-333) and associated
roles/responsibilities of the project team. The
success of the Heidelberg project’s HUC
phase demonstrated the importance of the
relevant hot spots and associated CCSU
lessons learned.

The Heidelberg project was the second offshore project in a design one, build two
project program. The first project, also constructed in the Gulf of Mexico, was the deep-
water Lucius Spar. The benefits from the lessons learned from the Lucius Spar HUC
were leveraged on the subsequent Heidelberg HUC. Many of these lessons learned
were closely associated with the CCSU hot spots identified by RT-333.

Context

Many HUC-related challenges on the prior Lucius project prompted changes on

the Heidelberg project:
• Larger-than-typical equipment size, unique fabrication shops, and unique
materials precipitated technical difficulties due to discovery during detailed
engineering.
• Numerous late design changes – the topsides increased in weight 17% from
the original design, due to late addition of a tie back from another operator
and discovery work during detailing.
• Incomplete work from the fabrication yard led to more offshore work –
approximately one third of offshore work was carryover that the onshore yard
did not complete.
• Lack of HUC leadership and associated planning support – there was no
dedicated owner commissioning lead on the project.

48
 3. Findings

• Hierarchy of responsibility was not in sync (i.e., lacked alignment).

• The scope of the project increased, and roles and responsibilities needed to
change to accommodate the extra work done offshore.
• Personality conflicts between individuals surfaced at the fabrication yard and
offshore.
• Offshore leadership roles and responsibilities were a point of conflict.
• Lack of experienced personnel – the industry was busy at the time,
particularly at the fabrication yard.
• Problems with corrosion and the sealing of compact valves accounted for two
of the four months of delay:
–– After factory acceptance test (FAT), corrosion occurred at an onshore
storage facility.
–– A new spring-seal mechanism was used for the first time in the design for
these valves.
––The valves would not seal during commissioning and most had to be
reworked.

CCSU Lessons Learned Implemented on Heidelberg

The challenges on Lucius led to the identification of many lessons learned that
were subsequently applied on Heidelberg. These lessons are outlined here, along with
indications of how they related to six different CCSU hot spots:

Planning/Schedule/Budget (Hot Spots #11 and #14)

• Heavy stress was placed on effective planning for commissioning – with
resource-loaded planning for CCSU.
• Appropriate HUC schedule and budget contingencies were established.
• A detailed CCSU schedule was created and effectively utilized (Level 4 by
American Association of Cost Engineers standards).
• The Commissioning schedule was created collaboratively by Construction,
Operations, and Commissioning.
• Ten percent of the HUC budget was set aside for responding to unknown-
unknowns, and they were addressed by dedicated “tiger teams” as they
occurred.
• The Heidelberg project did a better job of integrating modules onshore
because engineering was 100% complete and regulatory approvals had been
de-risked.

49
3. Findings

Leadership/Organization/Transitions (Hot Spots #8, #11, #14, #17, and #20)

• Leadership and accountability improved by having a dedicated owner
employee as HUC lead, for both onshore and offshore work. This person
established the ultimate goals and priorities for the HUC phase.
• The owner HUC lead also acted as SIMOPS (simultaneous operations)
coordinator and leader of offshore execution, encompassing Operations,
marine installation activities, Construction, and Commissioning.
• Heidelberg had better definition of roles, responsibilities, and reporting as
defined in the detailed HUC execution plan.
• Handover points were managed deliberately, decided upon collaboratively,
and done just once.

CSU Technical Improvements (Hot Spots #2, #8, and #17)

• The compact valves were inspected, refurbished if necessary, and then
preserved correctly before installation.
• Commissioning systems and sub-systems were further subdivided by project
phase, and Pre-Commissioning was executed in the appropriate project
phase. This eliminated redundant and/or ineffective Pre-Commissioning
throughout the project.
• Design changes were essentially eliminated by utilizing the predecessor
project design mostly “as is.”
• Complexities of the process, equipment, organization, design, and materials
were now familiar because of the predecessor project, and so could be better
anticipated and accommodated.

50
 3. Findings

Productivity Program for Fabricators and HUC Personnel (Hot Spots #11, #14,
and #20)
• The Heidelberg project established both onshore and offshore programs.
• Its incentives program involved both cash and prizes – for the entire team,
rather than by trade, thus incentivizing all workers to meet an aggressive
startup goal as a team.
• The program incentivized onshore fabricators to hurry up work, rather than
drawing it out.
• The team understood the goals set for each HUC system and milestone.
• Percent-complete status measures (vs. incentive targets) were displayed
electronically offshore, to incentivize effort and encourage the HUC team.

Table 16 shows how Heidelberg responded to six related CCSU hot spots, including
associated RACI assignments. Note how, especially in the Relevance to Project and
Responsive Actions descriptions, the illustrative case study learnings affirmed many
of RT-333’s hot spot findings.

51
 3. Findings
52

Table 16. CCSU Hot Spot Relevance, Responsive Actions, and RACI Assignments on Heidelberg

RACI Assignments
Hot Spot Relevance to Project and Responsive Actions
Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed
Preservation has far-reaching impacts including, but not limited to, CSU success. R Operations Superintendent; OIMs
#2
The effects of not preserving equipment in a dusty fabrication yard on the U.S.
Perform Gulf Coast came at great cost to the CSU phase of a prior similar project, and
preservation A Hook-Up and Commissioning Lead
during the leak testing of piping/valve systems in particular. When the team
through all phases began trying to solve the problem on the Heidelberg Spar project, it learned just Construction Manager; Execution Manager;
and execute how hard it was to write an actionable yet not overly prescriptive preservation Operations Technical Services; HUC
the equipment plan. Operations managed the development with project funds, as they have C
Engineering Support Lead; Materials
preservation plan the long-term incentive in its going well, but it took the whole team’s attention, Coordinators (3x Contractors)
from engineering to fabrication to commissioning, to get it right. The team also
Project Manager; Operations Technical
experienced the pains of over-zealous preservation, including over-greasing and
Services; Hook-up and Commissioning
early replacements. An overly aggressive preservation program can cause just I
Lead; Integrated Planner/Scheduler;
as many problems a hands-off approach can.
Project General Manager;
Walkthroughs were often the source of conflict on a previous similar project,
#8
because fabrication/QA, Commissioning, and Operations generally did not Construction Manager and Execution
Complete participate in mechanical completion walkthroughs together. When the group Manager; Hook-up and Commissioning
collaborative “selling” and the group “buying” do not have to look each other in the eye and R
Lead; Commissioning Manager; Operations
inspection agree on what needs to be complete, the tendency is to over-exaggerate Superintendent; OIMs
walkthrough of tags completion on the selling side, and over-exaggerate incompletion or non-
and systems by the conformance on the buying side. On Heidelberg, the team enforced five-
Commissioning party mandatory walkthroughs, consisting of Engineering, Fabrication, QA,
manager, the Commissioning, and Operations representatives. By making the groups come A Hook-Up and Commissioning Lead
construction together, the Fabrication and QA teams were encouraged to get the work done
contractor, and correctly prior to the walkthrough, rather than doing the minimum amount of work
Operations required to get a system out of their sphere of responsibility. The team also set the Topsides Engineering Lead; QA Team
expectation that systems should be turned over for Pre-Commissioning as soon C
Leads; Commissioning Superintendent
as safely possible, and provided with a Fabrication team dedicated to working
punch-list items in parallel with Pre-Commissioning and at the direction of the
Commissioning manager. Engineering was present to provide judgment on safety
and code-compliance, arbitrating when questions arose on the ability to turn Project Manager; Operations Technical
systems over to Commissioning. Operations was present for general engagement/ I Services; Completions Leads; Contractor
awareness and to weigh in on preference items early, in the interest of addressing Construction Quality Control
them before they could cause any rework for the Commissioning team.
 Table 16. CCSU Hot Spot Relevance, Responsive Actions, and RACI Assignments on Heidelberg (continued)

RACI Assignments
Hot Spot Relevance to Project and Responsive Actions
Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed
On the prior similar project, Construction-CSU were not aligned on the execution Construction Manager; Execution
#11
plan, with Construction needing CSU to “take a back seat” while engineering Manager; QA Team Leads; HUC
Conduct R
and fabrication yard problems were corrected, yet with the Commissioning/ Lead; Commissioning Manager; OIMs;
Construction-CSU Operations teams still trying to commission whatever they could, which was not in Operations Team Leads;
alignment meeting the project’s best interest.
on the execution A Hook-up and Commissioning Lead
In contrast, on Heidelberg the team deployed an integrated schedule, formally
plan
starting when construction was ~60% complete in the yard. This established
project-level priorities that all groups were asked to work toward, which led to Topsides Engineering Lead; Operations
quick and clear alignment on the near-, mid-, and long-term goals that everyone C Superintendent; Operations Technical
was working toward. It also allowed the project management team to empower Services
the right people at the right time, to shift resources to meet needs as changes
occurred, and to manage each individual contractor’s desire to complete its
I All functions
scope as efficiently as possible.
Bringing in key Operations & Maintenance personnel early in the project has
#14
both positive and negative impacts, but must be done. Having them on board R Operations Superintendent
Identify and and contributing during the Design phase of a project results in a CSU program
integrate key with fewer last-minute requests and better buy-in. In the case of Heidelberg,
Operations & having Operations on board and responsible for scope during the CSU phase A Hook-Up and Commissioning Lead
Maintenance was critical to the project’s success. The team started with discussions on CSU
personnel and methodology during early yard fabrication, including what it wanted as far as
supporting systems completion management, turnover of systems, and the integration of Commissioning Manager; Completions
organizations commissioning and operations. These discussions resulted in the Commissioning C Leads; Operations Superintendent; OIMs;
team’s ability to build good plans that Operations could buy into the first time Operations Technical Services
around. The team had Operations present for all mechanical completion
walkthroughs, and also had them walk through system Commissioning
procedures with Engineering and Commissioning personnel, to ensure they Construction Manager; Execution Manager;
would be able to consent to the adequacy of the Commissioning procedures and I
Commissioning Superintendent
that, once complete, a system would be ready for startup.

3. Findings
53
 3. Findings
54

Table 16. CCSU Hot Spot Relevance, Responsive Actions, and RACI Assignments on Heidelberg (continued)

RACI Assignments
Hot Spot Relevance to Project and Responsive Actions
Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed
Similar to Hot Spot #8, system handover (Commissioning to Operations turnover) Topsides Engineering Lead; Hook-up and
#17
walk-downs were often the source of conflict on the previous similar project R Commissioning Lead; Commissioning
Conduct system because Operations did not want to accept ownership of systems until they were Manager; Operations Superintendent; OIMs;
walk-downs for 100% complete and even augmented to the satisfaction of their preferences.
turnovers On Heidelberg, mandatory three-party walk-downs were enacted, consisting A Project Manager
of Engineering, Commissioning, and Operations. (Engineering was included
as a third party to weigh in on whether supposed non-conformances were true Completions Leads; HUC Engineering
barriers to a safe, operable, and code-compliant startup, or just things that could C
Support Lead
be corrected by a follow-on Construction/Commissioning team post-startup.)
Engineering approval for non-conformances combined with the knowledge Commissioning Superintendent; GOM
that a follow-on team would correct most preference items after startup gave Compliance; Regulatory Affairs; Integrated
I
Operations the confidence that they could take ownership of a system as early as Planner/Scheduler; Completions System
possible, rather than drawing out the process. Administrator
On Heidelberg, many team-building events were held for the Construction, Project Manager; Construction Manager;
#20
Commissioning, and Operations teams. Most often these were informal events, R Execution Manager; Project General
Conduct held jointly to encourage friendship and good relationships between the groups. Manager
Construction-CSU Informal dinners, fight nights (boxing, mixed martial arts), BBQs, cook-offs, and
team building other events were held while the teams were onshore. Once offshore, the teams A Hook-up and Commissioning Lead
were allowed to retire early for holidays, major milestone completions, and
whenever a big sporting event was on. This all went a long way to building the Topsides Engineering Lead; Operations
type of culture where CSU teams were able to work efficiently and boosted the C
Superintendent; OIMs
morale in a situation where the industry was in a down cycle and members of the
team were working themselves out of a job. I
 3. Findings

Comparison of Spar Commissioning Performance

As shown by the performance metrics in Table 17, the HUC performance on Heidelberg
dramatically improved over its predecessor project, Lucius. The differential swings on
both schedule and cost performance are sizeable. While it is difficult to attribute such
success to any specific factor or set of factors, the Heidelberg leadership team feels
strongly that the Heidelberg project team’s proactive treatment of the six hot spots
described in Table 16 contributed significantly to this success.

Table 17. Comparison of Hookup/Commissioning Performance

for the Two Spar Projects

Project
(HUC timing)
Lucius Heidelberg
Metric (Jan. 2015) (Jan. 2016)

Crude Oil (thousand of barrels/day) 80 80

Spar Production
Natural Gas (millions of cubic feet/day) 450 80
Nameplate Capacity
Basis

# of Commissioned Systems
174* 164
(Topsides and Hull)
RT-312 Indicators of
% Attainment 40% 80%
CSF Achievement

Planned (Months) 37 35
Project Schedule
(from Sanction to Actual (Months) 42 32
First Oil)
% Increase or (Decrease) 13.5% (8.6%)
Performance Comparison

Planned (Months) 5 5

HUC Schedule Actual (Months) 9 3

% Increase or (Decrease) 80% (40%)

HUC Work-hours
(against Lucius % (Decrease) – (58%)
Baseline)

Planned 1.00 1.32

HUC Budget
(against Lucius Actual (versus Baseline) 2.60 1.23
Baseline)
% Project Increase or (Decrease) 160% (6.8%)

*The 10 additional systems were used to handle the higher natural gas pass-through for Lucius.

55
 4
Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions

This research has provided answers to the essential question that originally
prompted CII to create RT-333:

How can the industry establish or clarify the accountabilities

and responsibilities among construction completion,
pre-commissioning, commissioning, and operations functions?

This research reached the following conclusions:

• Prior studies indicate that Commissioning/Startup failures are both too
common in frequency and extremely costly in impact. The business case for
action is clear.
• Transitions across Construction, Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning,
Startup, and Close-out are challenging for many reasons, but especially due
to the organizational handoffs required. Project and Commissioning success
require a full understanding of the activities required and the associated
responsibility assignments.
• RT-333 has developed a 17-step implementation process that integrates the
key findings from all three CII teams that have addressed commissioning:
Research Teams 121, 312, and 333.
• A flowchart of 124 activities has been organized by relevant project phase
and four different thematic swim-lanes:
–– planning/schedule/management/staffing
–– materials/equipment/components
–– subsystems/systems/interconnecting systems
–– data/documentation/audits and certifications.

• A CCSU RACI matrix for the 124 activities was mapped across 60 common
project organizational functions. While the Commissioning/Startup manager
is generally responsible for 49 of the 124 activities (40%), three other
key managers are generally responsible for 39 activities (31%): Project
manager, Construction manager, and Operations manager. The RACI matrix
developed should be treated as a starting point for in-depth, project-specific
management team discussions.

57
4. Conclusions and Recommendations

• Hot spots provide further insight into the challenges with CCSU transitions.
Hot spots are CCSU activities that generally have unclear responsibility
assignments, recurring problems or deficiencies, or that often fail to deliver
on expectations.
• Twenty CCSU hot spots surfaced from screening efforts by 49 CCSU
managers. Interestingly, three-quarters of the hot spots occur in the
Construction phase, indicating a need for greater oversight or involvement by
the project team at this time.
• Each of the 20 hot spots has been fully characterized in 10 fields of
information, including common impacts, causal factors, and prevention/
mitigation strategies, for which trend analysis has been conducted.
• Hot spots were cross-linked with the 16 commissioning/startup Critical
Success Factors identified previously by RT-312. Analysis of this data
underscores the relevance between the two, and in particular, the importance
of the Alignment, Execution planning, and Check-sheet critical success
factors.
• The Heidelberg Spar illustrative case study was documented to demonstrate
the substantial value that can result from timely and effective treatment of
targeted CCSU hot spots.

Recommendations
• The transitions across Construction, Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning,
Startup, and Close-out require greater management attention than they are
generally given.
• Project teams should rigorously apply the implementation process
recommended in this report, which ties together the various key findings from
CII Research Teams 121, 312, and 333.
• The CII community would benefit from additional documented case studies
focused on applying the tools provided by this research.
• A field-friendly tablet application tool would aid implementation efforts
associated with this study’s findings.

58
 Appendix A:
Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

The number in the rightmost column refers to each definition’s source: RT-333 or a
publication listed in the References.

Acceptance Testing done to prove that equipment has the ability to function within
RT-
Testing (AT) specified parameters. Usually performed by manufacturer personnel and
333
witnessed by project personnel.
Testing conducted to determine whether or not a system satisfies its
acceptance criteria and to enable the customer to determine whether or 20
not to accept the system.
As-builts Documents that accurately represent actual installed conditions,
equipment, and systems, such as drawings, computer graphics, equipment
1
data sheets, operation manuals, and maintenance manuals. They also
include the training program and training videotapes.
Asset Data Management of the documentation and data created and collected for the RT-
Management physical asset. Usually by means of an electronic database. 333
The commissioning database is a tool which contains all the data on
each commissioning system. Programmed using a relational database
program (such as MS Access) and residing on a server, the database
provides an itemized listing of the assets that are undergoing checkout and 26
commissioning, tracking of work for equipment assigned to commissioning
systems, and construction completion checklists. Numerous reports are
possible using different queries from the database table.
All the software in the technology stack between the operating system and
the application software, e.g., database management systems, middleware, 17
and application-enabling software.
Brownfield A project being conducted on, or in addition to, an existing physical asset. RT-
Project 333
Cable A check to be sure that low impedance electrical continuity exists between
Continuity two points in an electrical cable. This is a critical step to prevent incorrect RT-
Checks termination, and/or to check for physical damage or poor connections. May 333
also be referred to as “point-to-point” or “ring-out” check/test.
Check-sheets Instructional lists of tasks for the execution of various construction (or RT-
other) activities. 333
A record for documenting manufacturing, installation, and testing of
2
equipment
Close-out Referring to project close-out. The completion of all contractual obligations
by project participants. Complete and final documentation for Engineering, RT-
Construction, Commissioning/Completions, Operations/owner must be 333
included as part of project close-out.
Close-out A report completed upon project close-out by project personnel.
Report RT-
333

59
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Commissioning A phase of project execution when tasks, tests, and procedures are
performed to facilitate systems working in tandem for production. Usually
RT-
carried out by a team formed specifically for the purpose. For the
333
differences between the Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup
phases, see Appendix B.
Putting into operation (or otherwise making “live” for normal duty) a
plant, equipment, systems, or sections thereof. Adjusting and optimizing
12
operating conditions for attainment of design performance and, where
applicable, stipulated guarantees.
Commissioning is a task directed by the area commissioning team
leader, with assistance from Operations, the contractor, and generally
the equipment manufactures representative. During Commissioning, the
equipment is test operated to assure that it will operate to the design plan.
Commissioning occurs prior to Startup and begins when the contractor(s)
deem the equipment is construction-complete or has agreement with
the Commissioning team leader to pre-commission, and ends when the
equipment is turned over to Operations. The phases of Commissioning
26
include safety, equipment checkout, dry runs, trial runs, and product runs
to the point of being released for initial operations.
Commissioning is complete when the product runs have taken place
and satisfy the product success criteria. Commissioning is a shared
responsibility between the Commissioning team and plant operations.
During Commissioning, a gradual transition occurs, whereby the
Commissioning team begins to function in a support role and the operators
“start to drive.”
The integrated testing of plant systems prior to the introduction of
4
feedstocks.
A well planned, documented, and managed engineering approach to the
startup and turnover of facilities, systems, and equipment to the end-user,
18
that results in a safe and functional environment that meets established
design requirements and stakeholder expectations.
A quality oriented process for verifying and documenting that the
performance of facilities, systems, and assemblies meets defined 21
objectives and criteria.
Group of energized and dynamic tests that constitute verification that
each systems or subsystem is fabricated, installed, cleaned, and tested in 2
accordance with the design and that the systems are ready for startup.
Commissioning A phrase describing the portion of a capital project when disparate RT-
and Startup systems are made to work together as a process to produce some product. 333
(CSU)
Commissioning and startup is the process that occurs at the end of
checkout where the equipment is functioned as a system according to the
project design intent. The control system programs are enabled for full
execution at this time. The final verification of interlocks, permissives, and
sequential operation is performed at this time. Process fluid circulation
26
(flushing) and machine movements are checked during this phase. The
Operations staff also transition into the project at this time and perform
the control actions with the support of the Commissioning team. Transition
to the plant lockout system occurs at this time to coincide with the normal
means of operating the plant and project.

60
 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Construction Certificates issued upon system completion for a portion of the physical RT-
Completions asset. 333
Certificate
Document indicating that the system is physically complete. 2
Energization Adding a form of energy to a system or systems which will be part of its RT-
normal operation (e.g., electricity and flow of process materials) 333
Facility A final acceptance by the owner of the new physical asset (greenfield)
RT-
Acceptance or changes to an existing physical asset (brownfield) and an
333
acknowledgement that all contractual obligations have been fulfilled.
Factory Equipment acceptance testing done at the factory to demonstrate the
RT-
Acceptance correct operational capability of the equipment. Usually conducted with
333
Tests (FAT) project personnel present.
The partial commissioning and qualification of equipment and/or systems
16
prior to their shipment from the fabricator’s site.
An acceptance test in the supplier’s factory, usually involving the customer. 13
Inspection and static and/or dynamic testing of systems or major system
components to support the qualification of an equipment system 15
conducted and documented at the supplier site.
Feedstock The raw broth, containing particles to be removed, that is placed into
a laboratory or manufacturing appliance, such as a centrifuge or 10
chromatography column.
Raw material to supply or fuel a machine or industrial process. Also known RT-
as “process material.” 333
First The first product produced by the physical asset which can be sold. This
RT-
Commercial event usually marks the end of the Startup phase.
333
Product (FCP)
First Test The first product produced by the physical asset for testing. Usually RT-
Product produced during the Startup phase. 333
Greenfield A project being conducted to develop a new physical asset. RT-
Project 333
Handover Internal transfer of area/module or system assets between functional
2
groups within the project organization.
HAZOP Hazard and operability study – A study completed to identify risks to the
RT-
safety of personnel and equipment conducted by a team of experts familiar
333
with the project prior to project execution.
Technique for identification of potential hazards and operability problems. 12
Hazards and operability study – A method used to evaluate potential
hazards associated with the operation and maintenance of equipment and 4
systems.
Human- The electronic human interface for a controls system. RT-
Machine 333
Interface (HMI)
The HMI may comprise a number of switches, push buttons, and indication
lamps, or increasingly text displays and cathode ray tubes (CRTs) or liquid 10
crystal displays (LCDs).

61
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Loop Check A check of an individual portion of the controls system. Usually one of the RT-
last activities completed before the Commissioning phase. 333
Testing in which control system inputs and outputs are exercised and their
23
functionality verified.
Mechanical Attainment of readiness for commissioning of plant, equipment, systems
Completion or sections thereof, in which case all pre-commissioning activities are
(MC) included. In some instances, however, these terms may exclude pre-
12
commissioning, thus denoting completion to the extent of stipulated
mechanical tests having been satisfactorily fulfilled; pre-commissioning
then follows.
[Mechanical] construction completion is the point where the construction of
the commissioning system is complete or nearly complete and the control
of the equipment passes from the construction group to the commissioning
team. The completion of the equipment installation may include a Quality 26
Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) check by the construction contractors
but does not include a thorough checkout of the equipment and support
systems.
The point in a project at which all equipment and materials have been
10
installed but not commissioned (started-up).
Milestone point in time when tagged items and equipment within a
system is installed in accordance with all drawings specifications, and
2
documented in accordance with the inspection test plans and is ready for
pre-commissioning.
Modeling/ Optimization: The process of taking a facility from the point of where it
optimizers is able to run and perfecting, or “fine tuning,” each area to enhance the 26
operational ability of the mill.
Optimization: Modifying a program to improve performance; e.g., to make
28
it run faster or to make it use fewer resources.
Modeling: Construction of programs used to model the effects of a
postulated environment for investigating the dimensions of a problem for 28
the effects of algorithmic processes on responsive targets.
Modules Portions of the final physical asset not constructed in-place, but
RT-
constructed elsewhere and transported to the physical asset location and
333
tied-in.
A major section of a plant resulting from a series of remote assembly
operations and may include portions of many systems; usually the largest 10
transportable unit or component of a facility.
A container which can be transported by truck or railway and which is
equipped with the equipment necessary to perform the operation for which 10
it is designed.
A packaged functional hardware unit suitable for use with other
28
components.
Non- A report created to describe a quality issue with a specific part of the
RT-
Conformance physical asset, usually by project quality assurance personnel.
333
Report (NCR)
Non-process Fluids introduced to system(s) which are not included in the end-product, RT-
Fluids rather serve an ancillary purpose (e.g., lubricants). 333

62
 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Non-process Utility systems that are not directly supporting processing, rather serve an RT-
Utilities ancillary purpose. 333
Operations A disciplined, systematic, documented, performance-based examination
Readiness of facilities, equipment, personnel, procedures, and management control
27
Review systems to ensure that a facility will be operated safely within its approved
safety envelope as defined by the facility safety basis.
Original The manufacturer/maker of a piece of equipment or subsystem. Not a
Equipment distributor. RT-
Manufacturer 333
(OEM)
Physical Asset The physical installation (e.g., plant, pipeline, spar, and factory) being RT-
constructed and commissioned for the purpose of production. 333
Pre- A phase of project execution when tasks preparatory to commissioning
Commissioning are completed on systems to ensure their readiness for commissioning.
RT-
Usually carried out by the construction contractor. For the differences
333
between the Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup phases,
see the Appendix B.
Preparation, functional testing and making ready for commissioning
plant, equipment, systems or sections thereof suitably completed and 12
mechanically tested – for example, nitrogen purging; line-vessel cleaning.
Component-level testing of systems. Sometimes referred to as “pre-
commissioning,” “cold commissioning,” “construction completion,” or 4
“pre-op.”
Preparing the plant for commissioning (startup). This includes briefly
starting (bumping) all pieces of equipment, verifying their shaft rotation
is correct, verifying that valves, gauges, and other inline devices are 10
installed in the correct orientation, and performing functionality runs on all
equipment and material. This also includes leak tests.
Group of energized and static tests that constitute verification that the
equipment or component is fabricated, installed, cleaned and tested in 2
accordance with the design and ready for commissioning.
Preservation Deliberate protection of equipment and materials prior to initial operations
RT-
(when regular maintenance is occurring) from any degrading conditions
333
(e.g., moisture, high/low temperature, and rough handling).
Pre-Startup A review of systems prior to Startup focused on safety, and particularly
Safety Review focused on identifying any safety hazards in order to eliminate them RT-
(PSSR) prior to startup of systems. It is an element of OSHA’s Process Safety 333
Management regulations.
Process A manufacturing, cleaning, packaging, or distribution operation which may
10
be made up of a series of steps or stages.
A set of interrelated or interacting activities which transform inputs into
13
outputs.

63
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Punch List A list of outstanding work tasks, which are sometimes required to be RT-
completed before turnover can occur. 333
A list of action items developed near the end of a project that must be
completed prior to the constructor turning over a project to the owner.
4
Critical punch-list items must be completed before the unit may be started.
Non-critical punch-list items can be completed post-Startup.
The punch list is a mechanism to identify design and/or construction
changes. The punch list differs from the problem log in that the items
on it may be safety enhancements not included in the original design,
embellishments that are discretionary in nature or project scope changes.
Any item is “fair game” to be added to the punch list but additional cost 26
is usually incurred for punch list items. Therefore, an item-by item review
is necessary to avoid “scope creep.” Punch list review meetings can be
lively and contentious, therefore, the punch list is usually managed by the
construction manager or the person who “holds the purse strings.”
List detailing incomplete construction related items. 22
RACI Matrix A tool for assigning roles and responsibilities for activities on a project.
The acronym RACI stands for Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, and 11
Informed.
Run-in A test conducted on coupled rotating equipment with no load. RT-
333
Safety-critical Systems critical to the safety of personnel from construction through RT-
Systems operations (e.g., fire detection and fire suppression). 333
Site Equipment testing performed at owner site (with the vendor and owner
Acceptance present), which demonstrates and documents that the factory acceptance
RT-
Testing (SAT) testing punch list items have been resolved, and that equipment, systems,
333
or modules comply with owner specifications, prior to further testing. Also
known as an integration test.
An acceptance test at the customer’s site, usually involving the customer. 13
Inspection and/or dynamic testing of the systems or major system
components to support the qualification of an equipment system 15
conducted and documented at the manufacturing [job] site.
Skid Modules made to contain systems or parts of systems, which are
RT-
constrained to particular physical dimensions for ease-of-transport (e.g.,
333
the size of a semi-truck trailer or standard shipping container).
An assembly of individual pieces or stages of equipment, complete with
inter-connecting piping and connections for external piping. The assembly 10
may be mounted on a skid or other structure prior to delivery.
Skid-mounted equipment is generally an independent piece of
equipment designed for a specific processing step in the production of
10
a pharmaceutical product. Examples include equipment units such as a
compressor station or a refrigeration unit.

64
 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Startup Startup is the beginning of production runs, directed by mill operations,

to produce marketable product for sale. This is when the startup curve
begins. During the Startup period, the Operations team will lead the
effort to continually improve the process, with the assistance of the
Commissioning team and the designated construction support team.
26
During the Startup period, product certifications will take place, all
products will be scheduled and produced, and the reliability and uptime
will be enhanced. Startup ends when the mill meets the design rate on a
sustained basis and when the performance guarantees of the equipment
supplier are satisfied.
The major steps of the transitional phase between construction
and commercial operations include planning, turnover, checkout, 4
commissioning, and initial operations.
The initial operation of equipment that proves whether it is installed
properly and operates as intended. Startup is considered complete when 14
the selected equipment will adequately process product as specified.
Subject Matter A professional with expertise within a particular sub-discipline (often a
RT-
Expert (SME) consultant) who can be called on to assist during a certain portion of the
333
project
A person who possesses a documented deep comprehension of the
17
theory and concepts within his or her field of work.
An individual with specific expertise in a particular area or field. SMEs
should take the lead role in the verification of computerized systems.
SME responsibilities include planning and defining verification strategies, 20
defining acceptance criteria, selecting appropriate test methods, executing
verification tests, and reviewing results.
Subsystem A part of a system that has a discrete beginning and ending. RT-
333
A portion of a defined system that consists of interconnected items or a
group of equipment that perform a specific service or function. Will be able
2
to be isolated and separated from the associated system for independent
pre-commissioning.
System Interconnected items or a group of equipment that performs a specific
utility or operation service or function. Will be able to be isolated and
2
separated from the overall facility for independent pre-commissioning and
commissioning
Any assemblage of structural, mechanical, electrical, and instrumentation
4
components that provides a complete function or service.
A Commissioning system is a portion of the overall project. Systems are
parts of the project that can be operated somewhat independently from
one another. This facilitates a more manageable and systematic approach,
as well as allowing for a sequential completion and startup. As each
system is commissioned, the overall project is “pieced together,” somewhat
26
like a jigsaw puzzle. Definition of Commissioning systems is essential
for an orderly startup of large projects; however, smaller projects may or
may not require “breaking down.” Examples of systems include a paper
machine dryer section, a steam and condensate section, and a boiler
feedwater supply system.
An organization of engineering components that have a defined
operational function, e.g., piping, instrumentation, equipment, facilities, 15
computer hardware, or computer software.

65
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

System The documentation showing that a given system has been tested and
RT-
Certification shown to function properly within its parameters. Depending on the system,
333
these may or may not be issued by governing agencies.
The process through which a system, subsystem, or piece of equipment
2
has been installed, tested, and certified as ready to be put in service.
Systems Completion of the construction of individual systems with discrete
RT-
Completion beginning and ending points within the physical asset. Systems completion
333
is often tracked to determine progress towards Mechanical Completion.
The process through which the technical integrity and design of a newly
built facility is verified and the new facility is turned over from the project to 2
asset owner or from contractor to owner.
Tie-in A connection between an existing system and a new system. RT-
333
Transfer of A formal process to transfer the care (maintenance), custody (ownership)
RT-
Custody and control (operational responsibility) of an asset or system from one
333
party to another.
Turnover The act of turning over the physical asset (in part or whole) to another
party. Usually made official by signatures of both the transferring party and RT-
the receiving party, and only with their consent. Turnover packages are 333
generally transferred upon turnover.
Turnover is the distinct point in time when the primary responsibility
or “ownership” of a commissioning system changes. The main turnover
transitions are:
26
1. From the contractor to the commissioning team
2. From the commissioning team to the operations team
The jurisdictional transfer of control over specified components/systems
from one organization to another for the purposes of care, custody, and 4
control.
Also known as “hand over” in the U.K. A formal transfer of custody for a
18
system or unit to another group, department, or operating company.
Turnover A compilation of documents accompanying the turnover of a part of
RT-
Package the facility from one party to another. Usually comprises drawings,
333
certifications, manuals, and so on.
A collection of pertinent design, construction, vendor, and operational
documentation. This collection of documentation is used for the
qualification and process validation activity, as well as reference and single 19
source information for the life of any particular system, process, or piece of
equipment.
The required documentation to define that a system has been built,
2
installed, tested and is ready to be placed into operation.
Turnover to The sequential turnover of the physical asset from the construction team to RT-
Commissioning the commissioning team for commissioning. 333
(TC)
Minor milestone in project when pre-commissioning activities for a
discipline (or collection of systems) are essentially complete and ready to 2
commence commissioning.

66
 Appendix A: Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

Turnover to The sequential turnover of the physical asset from the commissioning team RT-
Startup (TS) to the operations team for Startup. 333
Signifies that a system’s construction, pre-commissioning and
commissioning work are complete and the required safety verification is 2
ready to commence startup.
Walk-down A collaborative, multi-party inspection and review of a system to determine
RT-
readiness prior to turnover. Participants should include the commissioning
333
manager, construction contractor, and an operations representative.
Walkthrough See “walk-down” RT-
333
Work Shift Project leadership labor planning efforts to accommodate more than one RT-
Management work shift. 333

67
 Appendix B:
Scopes of Pre-Commissioning vs. Commissioning vs. Startup

Pre-Commissioning
Commissioning Startup
(a.k.a. “Static Commissioning”)
Component Level Multi-component Integration and System Level System Level
• Activities are typically post-mechanical • All construction is complete and verified • First introduction of feedstocks,
completion (at component level) but prior to prior to initiation of commissioning (but post- produced fluids, and media
energization and introduction of any feed stocks construction) • All tests that indicate that the entire
• Activities may or may not be the responsibility of • Energization of equipment starts the production system is working as
the construction contractor commissioning process intended with respect to regulatory
Scope Description

• Concludes with a ready-for-commissioning • Actions immediately prior to Startup requirements, safety, operability,
certificate for each system product production rate, quality of
• Concludes with a “ready-for-startup” or product, environmental performance,
• Rotating equipment: bump for, rotation “pre-startup safety review” certificate for the integration with prior/existing systems,
guards, installed, rotation check, motor bumps, entire unit and/or for each system systems performance (i.e., response
alignment checks, and uncoupled checks time, energy consumption), testing the
• Typically concludes with “ready for shutdown of systems, and so on.
commissioning” certificate or completed • First test product is produced and
check sheets available for property/characteristics
testing
• Operator readiness may be tested on a
test run
69
 Appendix B: Scopes of Pre-Commissioning vs. Commissioning vs. Startup
70

Pre-Commissioning
Commissioning Startup
(a.k.a. “Static Commissioning”)
Component Level Multi-component Integration and System Level System Level
1. Line-vessel cleaning; Initial leak checks; Non- 1. All energized and/or dynamic tests that 1. Initial manual operation of whole
operating checks, inspections, testing, cleaning, constitute verification that each system or facility/system, by loop prior to going to
flushing, blowing, drying, adjusting; Cold subsystem is fabricated, installed, cleaned, and automatic
aligning of equipment, piping, instrumentation, tested in accordance with design intentions, and
2. Transfer from manual loop control to
electrical systems, cold alignment checks, that systems are ready for startup
auto control by loop or by sub-system
spring hanger settings, and some equipment
2. Chemical cleaning and steam blowing
tests (all items documented on construction and 3. Purging of temporary fluids
pre-commissioning check sheets). 3. Final leak checking and air freeing; Leak and
4. Start and verify analyzer/process
tightness testing
2. Mechanical equipment, wiring checks for analytics functionality and operability
installation accuracy; point-to-point continuity 4. “First fill” (e.g., lubricants, utility fluids); loading
5. Start and integrate any additional items/
checks of catalyst, desiccants, polishers, and so on.
systems beyond the base system
3. Mechanical function tests 5. Checkout of control systems and emergency
6. Turn on modeling/optimizers, such as
shutdown systems; testing of all safety function
4. Construction rework, as required loop tuning or batching recipe controls
Key Inclusions

systems
5. All verification tests to ensure equipment is 7. Test and validate controls at design
6. Rotating equipment run-in; coupled testing of
fabricated, installed, cleaned, and tested in capacity or any other lesser desired
rotation equipment
accordance with the design capacity level
7. Circulation with temporary fluids
6. All tests and inspections required prior to any 8. Any ramp-up step and tests
dynamic testing 8. Testing of utilities
9. Conduct validation of product quality
7. Function checks accomplished with discipline- 9. Interlocks functional tests (such as microbe tests, and metallurgy
specific check sheets tests)
10. Testing of control functions and replacement of
8. Power-off checks of equipment, piping, and temporary components
electrical cable 11. Overall system commissioning (whole)
9. Non-operating adjustments performed before 12. Running proper diagnostic checks on all
system turnover valves, transmitters, pumps, and so on, using
10. Initial required calibrations functionality test templates.
11. All loop checks 13. Purging of fluids
12. Preservation 14. Additional required calibrations or re-calibration
(e.g., safety valves and instruments).
13. All static/non-energized checks completed
 Appendix C
Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

Resources and Facilities for Pre-Commissioning

Mobilize resources and facilities for Pre-Commissioning, including necessary
SMEs and third-party participants

Flowchart Activity # 14, 53

Timing
Construction: Early (Activity #14)
Pre-Commissioning: Early (Activity #53)

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• Most projects today do not conduct on-site instrumentation/control valve bench tests,
set-ups, and functional checks with wrenches and screwdrivers. The same work is
now done with software (AMS) diagnostics in Pre-Commissioning or Commissioning
by an SME. This important work cannot be skipped over. Failure to mobilize these
resources in a timely fashion (whether due to cost-cutting, schedule-cutting, or for any
other reason) will cost far more in schedule and budget during Startup.
• Technology today for new plants includes smart equipment with self-diagnostic tests
and checks available to SMEs for quick verification during Pre-Commissioning or
Commissioning. At least 98% of projects now buy and install this new capability;
however, few take full advantage of it.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Timing the mobilization of CSU resources and personnel correctly is difficult, and often
occurs too late.
• Vendors and SMEs are not involved enough because of cost-cutting and the extra
coordination required.
• It is difficult to persuade project managers of the necessity of staffing a few
Commissioning personnel no later than full execution funding.
• Startup personnel do not have a complete understanding of the process design.
• There are not enough experienced personnel on site at the time of Pre-Commissioning,
Commissioning, and Startup.

71
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

Causal Factors
• Vendors and SMEs are not sufficiently involved in commissioning because of cost-
cutting.
• Commissioning is not well understood by most in industry. This lack of understanding
often causes unreasonable time constraints and cost pressures to be imposed on
commissioning.
• Since commissioning always occurs at the end of a project, it inherits the leftover
budget, schedule, and execution problems from all previous work.
• Commissioning is not treated as a stand-alone discipline, and thus gets subordinated
to construction.
• Startup personnel are often brought in from other facilities because of staffing
constraints.
• Extreme winter working conditions and remote job sites can make it difficult to mobilize
resources (human and other).

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Lack of timely Vendor/SME support ends up costing more than was saved by not hiring
them. Doing verification testing right the first time with an SME/Vendor present is
cheaper than doing it wrong and being delayed. An SME may be needed to help solve
the problem in the end anyway.
• Commissioning without proper staff/resource support will result in a frustrated,
overworked commissioning team, who are forced to respond to emergencies rather
than preventing them. Even if construction finished on time or ahead of schedule, that
time will be lost during extended commissioning. These working conditions will lead to
more mistakes.
• Lack of necessary resources will lead to delays in startup.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Allocate appropriate budget for successful commissioning, especially for the timely
inclusion of SMEs and vendors.
• Educate company executives and estimators on the importance of commissioning, as
well as the schedule and budget requirements for successful commissioning.
• Create a fully integrated construction-commissioning schedule with system-based
milestones.
• Development of a vendor/SME plan including a schedule and regular updates.
• If the construction schedule slides, do not reduce the scheduled time for
Commissioning. This will only result in further delay because of rushed Commissioning.
• Identify and involve the Commissioning team in the Design phase, giving them
adequate time to review the scope of Commissioning, and plan for staffing accordingly.
• Involve Startup personnel in the pre-Startup safety review.
• Commissioning and Startup personnel should not report to the construction contractor,
but rather to the project manager.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technology [CII 2015]: Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation.

72
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #1 # Contributors: 31

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: CSU Personnel Coordination (Staffing); CSU SMEs/Engineering Support

Informed: HSE Management; Project Management; Construction Management;

Plant Operations Management; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination;
Security (e.g., site, personnel, cyber); Systems Completions Database
and Support; CSU Cost Estimation and Controls; CSU Planning,
Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #1
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

1. CSU Value 1.1 CSU manager is on the project organizational chart at the start of
Recognition front end engineering.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been
3. Adequate
derived from knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if
Funding for CSU
needed CSU resources, not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews,
Construction engineered equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and
schedules.

5.1 A CSU manager was assigned at the start of front end engineering
and remained with the project through to initial operations.
5. CSU Leadership
Continuity
5.2 The qualifications and the planned tenure of the CSU manager were
well-defined by early front end engineering.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well

understood among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and
Capability
the technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

73
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #2 # Contributors: 26

Execute Preservation
Perform preservation through all phases and execute the equipment preservation plan

Flowchart Activity # 15, 60, 85

Timing
Construction: Early (Activity #15)
Pre-Commissioning: Early (Activity #60)
Commissioning: Early (Activity #85)

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• On a coal-burning, solid-fuel boiler power plant project in Louisiana, the construction
contractor stored all the motor-operated valves outside, since they were going to be
installed outside anyway. The valve motors are designed to keep water out when
installed, but not when sitting on their side in a foot of water. Almost every valve
actuator had to be repaired or replaced.
• On one project in cold-weather conditions, control valve motor heaters were plugged in
to keep out moisture and keep them from freezing during preservation in a warehouse.
When the valves were staged for installation on site, they sat outside for several days
without the heaters plugged in, which resulted in corrosion inside the motors.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• There is a general lack of urgency and responsibility for preservation work.
• Equipment and materials are left without preservation and degrade as result of
weather, environmental effects, construction activities, and debris.
• For many projects, no effective preservation plan was ever created.
• The exact condition and location of equipment or materials is often disregarded or
unknown.
• Damage to equipment during transportation is not realized until installation or
commissioning.

Causal Factors
• No preservation/preventive maintenance leader has been assigned.
• It is unclear who is responsible for executing the preservation plan.
• Preservation is difficult to do right because of inadequate resources to properly track
and maintain equipment/materials.
• Preservation occurs too late or is overlooked completely because it is not an immediate
priority.
• There is a lack of alignment on the importance of preservation at the management level.
• Preservation does not receive enough attention during contracting and project planning.
• Construction contractors are relied upon to perform preservation with little oversight.

74
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #2 # Contributors: 26

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• If preservation occurs too late or not at all, serious technical complications during
Commissioning and Startup will inevitably result.
• Some complications symptomatic of poor preservation include corrosion, dirt/grime,
seal leaks, shafts frozen in place, and dirty, clogged, or stuck instruments/control
valves.
• Threats to durability of equipment (e.g., batteries) and warranty coverage may also
result from lack of preservation.
• Because some equipment is custom/special order, equipment damaged by lack of
preservation can seriously delay CSU schedule.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure that contract documents specify preservation requirements, so that
preservation can be contractually set up for success.
• Develop a project-specific preservation plan as part of project planning.
• Assign a preservation leader/coordinator with a dedicated mixed-trade crew before
construction begins.
• Consider having Operations personnel perform preservation; this will allow them to
familiarize themselves with the equipment before installation.
• Store equipment properly both on- and off-site. Maintain preservation standards
meticulously through startup.
• Plan for staffing-up early to have enough plant operations personnel on site to help
perform preservation tasks.
• Set up an electronic/data framework for tracking equipment/material location, for
recording preservation requirements and actions, and for tracking preservation
schedule milestones.
• Educate managers on the importance of preservation, as well as the schedule and
budget requirements for successful preservation.
• Work with vendors to identify any equipment for which proper preservation has not
been performed.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management; Preservation; Operations

Accountable: Construction Management

Consulted: Business Unit Management; Maintenance; OEM/Supplier; Quality

Assurance; Construction Quality Control (e.g., Weld Inspection, Test
Materials, Positive Material Identification)

Informed: Project Management; Operations Readiness Management; Plant

Operations Management; CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and
Schedule Control; Systems Completions Database and Support

75
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #2
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

1. CSU Value 1.1 CSU manager is on the project organizational chart at the start of
Recognition front end engineering.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been
3. Adequate
derived from knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if
Funding for CSU
needed CSU resources, not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews,
Construction engineered equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and
schedules.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets

has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions
(e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and quality) and
11. Definition
loaded into a CSU management system prior to construction.
of CSU
Check-sheets,
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Procedures, and
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
Tools
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well

understood among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions and
Capability
the technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

76
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #3 # Contributors: 29

System-based Execution
Transition to CSU system-based execution (from area- or discipline-based)

Flowchart Activity # 31

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• On an ethylene plant in Corpus Christi, Texas, project construction failed to completely
transition from area- to system-based execution at the agreed-upon time. Delivery
dates for specific systems were not decided upon until 60% construction complete,
and thus were not included in the construction contract up-front. While there was buy-
in from the construction management executive for systems-based completion, the
field construction personnel continued to work by area and would not switch to system
construction. Because they were incentivized purely by bulk productivity, foremen
and superintendents were subject to a conflict of interest. The delay in commissioning
caused by systems not being handed over in the proper order made the project
schedule slip from two months ahead of schedule to right on time.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Projects wait too long to transition to CSU system-based execution.
• Project transition to system-based completion can occur too early.
• Construction personnel are unwilling to make the transition to deliver systems in the
sequence as required for commissioning.
• Knowing when and how to transition from area to system is difficult.
• Defining the order and schedule for system turnover in the contract can be difficult
since system boundaries and the required order for commissioning systems may not
yet be known.
• Incentive systems for bulk productivity in construction make the transition to systems-
based completion difficult and can create a conflict of interest for field construction
management.
• Early construction planning does not take into account sequencing for startup needs,
but is often only focused on bulk construction planning.

77
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #3 # Contributors: 29

Causal Factors
• There is a major lack of alignment between Construction management and
Commissioning management. The importance of this transition to project success is
often not understood by Construction managers.
• Prior to the point of transition, the Commissioning manager must be the one to decide
which systems have work priority. This sudden transition of decision-making power
can cause problems. The Construction manager still has ultimate authority (turnover
has not yet occurred),. and he or she may be unwilling to listen to the Commissioning
manager.
• Projects are not resource-loaded for commissioning early on, and the required order
for commissioning is not known until long after the start of construction.
• No C-CSU transition plan was ever created.
• The C-CSU transition plan was poorly done, with ill-defined points of transition.
• Too many exceptions to the transition plan are granted in order to progress the work;
which leads to issues and mistakes later.
• Instead of focusing on driving the transition, leadership is focused either on bulk
construction or systems commissioning: not on bridging the transition gap.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Ignoring the transition to system-based execution usually affects quite a few systems.
It drives the need for partial system turnovers, which itself is fraught with errors.
• Transitioning too early means that more construction personnel will be on-site when
systems begin to be energized. Having more construction personnel present around
live systems creates more safety risk.
• When this transition does not occur, Construction ends up working on some systems
that do not need to be completed until much later. They also ignore some systems
that urgently need to begin in Pre-Commissioning. These irregularities cause budget
overruns and schedule delays.
• Missing this transition causes great frustration for Commissioning personnel and
can destroy the commissioning plan. The friction, confusion, and stress created by
not delivering systems in order or when required can have a big impact on relations
between organizations.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Develop a transition plan as part of project planning. Consider the critical path for
systems needed for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup. Also consider
physical space requirements and be sure that information from the design team is
readily available at the time of transition.
• Have a resource-loaded commissioning-driven schedule. Define system boundaries
and the order of system completion/turnover early during project planning and include
it in the request for proposals (RFPs) and the contract with the construction contractor.
• Align Construction management and Commissioning management early (shortly after
the contract has been signed) on the importance of the transition to system-based
execution. Align on what triggers the transition to system-based execution. Get buy-
in from field construction supervision (superintendents/foremen) on systems-based
completion.

78
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #3 # Contributors: 29

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies (continued)

• Establish a systems-focused organization to drive the transition and to focus the
organization on larger priorities
• Have Construction and Commissioning management meet again at 60% construction
complete. Have Construction management show staffing plans and how they are going
to support the transition and pre-commissioning effort. Begin reporting or showing
percent complete on a system basis. Agree to transition to system-based completion
no later than 70% construction complete.
• Ensure that the Construction and Commissioning managers have a good working
relationship.
• Do not penalize in-field construction personnel (craft) for the lower productivity
associated with transitioning to systems-based completion. Rather, incentivize delivery
of completed systems on time.
• Ensure timely system turnover by including contract mechanisms to motivate on-time
delivery (e.g., payment retention, liquidated damages/incentives).
• Establish a plan to operationalize transition management:
–– Utilize tiger/HIT teams – dedicated construction teams that report to the
Commissioning team.
–– Utilize work packs aligned to systemization to ensure the priority systems are
being progressed
–– Use permit-to-work (PTW) to allow only priority work, and use first-oil/first-gas
strategies to keep certain work fronts closed.
–– Create “utilization” report metrics, (e.g., priority work complete/total work) to track
progress
• Manage and mitigate live-plant risks.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technologies [CII 2015]:
–– BIM/3D Design Models
–– Completion Management Systems.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management; Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Engineering Management

Informed: System Commissioning Teams

79
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #3
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design reviews,
Construction engineered equipment purchases, construction sequencing, and
schedules.

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s

CSU sequence (including all system, subsystems and related
dependencies), with formal recognition of all critical sequences and
8. Recognition of was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of
detailed design and took into consideration timely completion of life-
safety and process safety systems, control systems, utility systems,
and process systems, among others.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and
HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

10.1 Finalization of CSU sequence, depicting all systems, subsystems,

10. System-focus and associated dependencies.
in Detailed Design 10.2 Commissioning test procedures were completed by the end of
detailed design.

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning integrated

schedule by the 30-percent construction complete milestone.
15. Transition to
15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of check-sheets during
Systems-based
construction.
Management
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list management, led
by CSU team.

80
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #4 # Contributors: 28

Cleaning and Drying

Perform cleaning, passivation, and drying of piping and ducts (including steam
blowing and pigging)

Flowchart Activity # 33

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• During turnarounds on a specialty oil refinery in Sweden, drying of instrument air
systems after pressure tests was problematic. Lowering the moisture in the systems to
appropriate levels proved difficult, especially in cold conditions, and could take up to a
week. When drying was not done properly, moisture in the line jammed control valve
positioners, resulting in an inability to control the plant process upon startup.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Instrument air lines are not dried properly.
• Flow lines are not cleaned during construction, or are not cleaned well enough.
• Cleaning and drying are not completed as scheduled.
• Misapplication of preservation materials, causing rework of cleaning activities.
• Lack of documentation of cleaning/passivation often results in those activities being
repeated.

Causal Factors
• There is a lack of Systems thinking during FEED, which makes it impossible to clean
flow lines as scheduled. The required utilities may not yet be online, or systems may
not yet be ready for pressurization.
• Specifications for cleaning, drying, passivation, and so on are not clearly defined in a
timely manner.
• EPC contractors often do not have the expertise to perform cleaning and other such
tasks, and are sometimes unwilling to hire specialty contractors.
• The construction environment is not well-suited to the meticulous nature of proper flow
line cleaning, drying, and so on.
• Construction contractor personnel often do not have a good understanding of the
effects when system cleaning is not done properly.
• Time constraints (especially on plant turnarounds) are tight and result in heavy
pressure from upper management to get the plant operational.
• Construction schedule is often delayed, pushing cleaning activities until the very end,
prior to system turnover; the resultant schedule pressure diverts focus from cleaning.
• There can be a fundamental incompatibility between CSU schedule pressure and the
experience level of available CSU staff; especially at remote project locations.

81
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #4 # Contributors: 28

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• If the flow lines have not been cleaned beforehand, when final trim and other
equipment is put in place, it will likely be damaged by debris flowing through the lines.
• Pressure from management to get the plant producing leads to “cutting corners” during
Commissioning and Startup execution. Often drying and cleaning are activities that get
constrained.
• Cleaning too early, before construction is sufficiently complete, can result in having to
re-do the cleaning prior to turnover to the Commissioning group.
• Insufficient cleaning can result in damage to rotary equipment, and system shutdowns
and delays.
• Damaged equipment and clogged lines cause system shutdown, schedule delays, and
cost overruns.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Define cleaning, drying, and other specifications clearly for EPC contractors. Make
the specifications/instruction easy to find, read, and use. One example being a piping-
class flushing matrix.
• Hire a specialty contractor to perform flow line cleaning, passivation, preservation
and drying. Allow the specialty contractor to suggest the correct method to meet the
specification for approval by the client.
• If there are problems during cleaning/drying, admit that problems have occurred, and
consider repeating those activities properly.
• Stress systems-thinking during FEED, all the way through startup. Ensure that the
necessary utilities will be online and available for use in cleaning, drying, and so on.
• Create detailed engineered plans supportive of cleaning and drying to eliminate
ambiguity and short cuts; for example, calculate the flushing flow rate needed instead
of using just a velocity requirement.
• Use side-stream filtration for normal equipment. Note this will need the control and
safety systems to be functional.
• Define the collection and disposal of chemical effluents in accordance with
environmental authorities and regulations.
• Isolate instrumentation during cleaning, passivation, and drying. This will prevent
damage to the instrumentation.
• Use QA/QC personnel to witness cleaning and drying activities performed by the
construction contractor.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technology [CII 2015]: Completion Management Systems.

82
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #4 # Contributors: 28

RACI Designations

Responsible: Piping

Accountable: Construction Management

Consulted: HSE Management; CSU SMEs/Engineering Support; Quality Assurance;

Construction Quality Control (e.g., Weld Inspection, Test Materials,
Positive Material Identification)

Informed: Commissioning and Startup Management; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS

Coordination

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #4
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

7. CSU System
7.1 Formal CSU design review has occurred by the end of front end
Engineering
engineering.
during FEED

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s

CSU sequence (including all system, subsystems and related
dependencies), with formal recognition of all critical sequences and
8. Recognition of was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of
detailed design and took into consideration timely completion of life-
safety and process safety systems, control systems, utility systems,
and process systems, among others.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-sheets

has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project functions
11. Definition (e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and quality) and
of CSU loaded into a CSU management system prior to construction.
Check-sheets, 11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Procedures, and procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
Tools project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

83
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #5 # Contributors: 21

Punch List
Identify and communicate Construction punch list items critical for
Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup

Flowchart Activity # 47

Timing
Construction: Late

Project Context/Example Scenario

• A compressor was set to start up on October 1. The site was ready to conduct a
punch list walk-down on September 20. The list created was several pages long
and ranged from paint issues to safety issues. Operations was pushing to purge the
units, but refused to do so until ALL punch list items were complete. The Construction
team was trying to prioritize them, so the contractor could focus on the most critical
items first, believing that many items could be completed once the system had been
purged. The contract had a liquidated damages clause, so the contractor was pushing
for all punch list items to be listed as non-critical. Tension was created on-site before
Commissioning even began.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• It is often difficult to get Commissioning, Operations, Safety, and Construction teams
to agree which punch list items are required for various CSU phases.
• Non-critical items are often added to punch lists because Operations participants feel
that, if these items are not addressed by Startup, they will never be addressed.
• The process of identifying and resolving required pre-Startup punch list items can be
iterative and take a long time.
• Since construction contractors are responsible for completing all work, they may
not be motivated to prioritize pre-Startup (versus post-Startup) items. If liquidated
damages are involved, contractors may attempt to push pre-Startup items off the
critical list, and this sometimes causes safety issues.
• Construction may view the punch list as a form of QC and miss a lot of items that could
have been taken care of before the punch list was created.

Causal Factors
• Projects are often behind schedule by the time the punch list is created and there is a
rush to begin Commissioning/Startup.
• The construction contractor may not have the expertise or proper support to install
some complex systems (e.g., instrumentation, electrical, and/or controls).
• Commissioning and Operations teams have different priorities and perspectives, which
can cause them to have different ideas about which items are critical.
• Some critical punch list items may be missed at first, and then found later. Items may
also get kicked back to the contractor, because the work was not up to specification.
This back-and-forth can draw out the process and take a long time.

84
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #5 # Contributors: 21

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Lack of alignment between Commissioning and Operations teams will likely cause
delays because the pre-Startup punch list will include items that are not actually
critical. Projects can get held up when individuals withhold signatures until their items
are added to the punch list.
• Conflicts over punch list items cause project delays and hurt working relations between
Construction, Commissioning, and Operations personnel.
• Issues such as code violations, poor installation, and inadequate programming on
controls will be added to punch lists for systems, making resolution inordinately long.
The delay from sending issues back to Construction and then re-inspecting will cause
frustration on all sides and can substantially affect the project schedule.
• Unresolved critical issues that never made it to the punch list will be discovered during
Commissioning, when they result in schedule delay and higher cost than if they had
been resolved during Construction.
• Issues that were never resolved (especially controls issues) – some of which were
never identified – will cause the plant/facility to under-perform. Early shutdowns may
be needed and the plant may never reach full output capacity.
• Delays in startup can be caused by missing or miscommunicating punch list items.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Clearly define the scope of the project up-front, in order to avoid loading punch lists
with work items that are outside the project scope.
• Implement a punch-list procedure that is signed-off by all parties.
• Consider that Operations personnel may work with the as-built plant for many years,
with little or no opportunity for making changes. Involve Operations personnel in the
design to help identify these items long before punch lists are created.
• Assign QA/QC personnel, who do not report to the construction contractor, to identify
issues to be resolved before the punch list is created.
• Perform a thorough joint walk-through where all punch list items are identified. Then, in
a separate meeting with Commissioning and Operations, identify by common consent
which ones are actually critical.
• Align Commissioning and Operations teams on the punch list framework and on which
systems are critical for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup before
construction begins. Hold joint problem-solving meetings to resolve disagreements
on critical items among Construction, Commissioning, and Operations teams. When
deciding on critical versus non-critical punch-list items, conduct compromise sessions
with involved stakeholders, to come to an agreement on which items must be
completed before Startup.
• Utilize a change management system.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technology [CII 2015]: Completion Management System.

85
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #5 # Contributors: 21

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management; Plant Operations

Management; Punch-list/Turnover Coordination

Accountable: Construction Management

Consulted: HSE Management; Engineering Management

Informed: Project Management; System Commissioning Teams

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #5
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical Success

Indicators of CSF Achievement
Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been

reviewed/approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are
4. Alignment among affixed.
Owner PM, Operations,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
CSU, Engineering, and
Construction 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning

check-sheets has been defined, reviewed, and approved
by key project functions (e.g., construction, commissioning,
operations, and quality) and loaded into a CSU management
11. Definition of system prior to construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and Tools 11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations,
and quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior
to construction and/or module fabrication.

16. Collaborative
Approach to 16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU managers, were
Construction-CSU conducted starting around 50-percent construction complete.
Turnover

86
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #6 # Contributors: 20

Schedule Recovery
Plan for and manage CSU schedule recovery

Flowchart Activity # 27

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• On a multi-billion dollar offshore project scheduled to take multiple years, the project
team paid personnel a generous living allowance up-front, as a way of communicating
the priorities. The investment paid off when the project needed expertise from those
people during Commissioning. These personnel were willing to jump on a plane and
share their expertise later, when there was an urgent situation – even though some
had moved on to different projects by that time.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• By the time the project reaches Commissioning, it is often behind schedule, and CSU
has to “scramble” to recover schedule.
• There is often no plan in place for CSU schedule recovery.

Causal Factors
• Possible causes of a need for schedule recovery include weather impacts, low labor
productivity, inexperienced craftsmen, badly managed work fronts, disagreements on
quality standards, and not including enough float in construction schedules.
• In a hot market or in a remote location, it can be difficult to get enough experienced
craftsmen. Staff turnover can be an issue as local jobs compete for the best
craftspeople.
• Systems are delivered to the Commissioning team out of order, not following the
priority schedule. Construction teams will sometimes front-end load work in order to
provide better cash flow, or for other reasons.
• Construction contractors may not have planned for schedule recovery; for example,
by including float in their schedule estimates. Usually they give completion dates
according to their staffing plans. It is difficult to have confidence in those dates.
• When construction runs behind schedule, turnover packages are delivered to the
Commissioning team late and in an incorrect order.
• The reasons why packages are late do not always get tracked or understood, so CSU
recovery tactics cannot be planned accordingly.
• Equipment failure during Commissioning can impact commissioning sequence and
may require schedule adjustment

87
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #6 # Contributors: 20

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• When Construction delivers systems out of order, Commissioning is required to
commission what they receive, which impacts schedule and commission priority. This
adds cost and causes CSU to take longer.
• There is a limit to how much schedule can be recovered during CSU. Recovering even
moderate amounts of schedule will require preparation and forethought.
• If the CSU phases are treated as a schedule buffer or contingency, the project will end
up costing more and taking longer.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Conduct a schedule risk assessment that identifies where the schedule risk is greatest.
• Assist the construction team in delivering systems in the prescribed order to the
commissioning team, even if some are late.
• Use a critical path approach to construction work, according to the CSU test matrix
schedule.
• Actively track construction issues and plan for appropriate CSU recovery tactics.
• Use and review schedule performance metrics for work and contracts.
• Adjust manpower/shift timing to increase the rate of completion.
• Contractually ensure that adequate float is included in the schedule and that it covers
project risks.
• Align on quality standards, code interpretation, and specifications up front.
• Make sure Construction understands system scoping and priority.
• Conduct early and thorough QA/QC of installed systems, with consideration of the
functional specification.
• Provide for named individuals in key positions in project contracts.
• Utilize a change management system.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Construction Management

Informed: Business Unit Management; Project Leadership Team; System

Commissioning Teams; Legal/Insurance/Finance; CSU Planning,
Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control

88
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #6
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical Success

Indicators of CSF Achievement
Factor

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s

CSU sequence (including all system, subsystems and related
dependencies), with formal recognition of all critical sequences
8. Recognition of CSU and was finalized by end of detailed design.
Sequence Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of
detailed design and took into consideration timely completion
of life-safety and process safety systems, control systems,
utility systems, and process systems, among others.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well

understood among CSU team members.

12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their

12. CSU Team Capability
actions and the technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management

metrics.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and
Construction/CSU
turnover milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning integrated

schedule by the 30-percent construction complete milestone.
15. Transition to
15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of check-sheets
Systems-based
during construction.
Management
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list
management, led by CSU team.

89
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #7 # Contributors: 20

As-built Drawings
Assure correctness and completeness of as-built, commissioned drawings and
documentation

Flowchart Activity # 121

Timing
Project Close-out

Project Context/Example Scenario

• A compressor station needed to be modified to add capacity. The drawings showed
there was a spare valve and flange at the end of the header, and this would allow the
addition to be made without shutting down the station. A base plan and budget were
created based on this understanding. However, upon going on-site, it was found that
the spare valve did not exist. Adding it to the station would demand a station shutdown,
requiring 15 wells to be shut in with significant loss of production. The shutdown would
cost an additional $300,000 in project costs. If proper drawings had existed, proper
funds could have been budgeted.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• As-built drawings do not reflect the state of the project at close-out.
• Accurate as-built drawings are not available for future operations, troubleshooting,
maintenance, and brownfield projects.
• QA/QC field changes do not get documented in the as-built drawings.
• There is a lack of field verification of whether facilities match as-built drawings.
• Older equipment drawings are often found to be deficient.
• Upon project close-out, “redline” updates may still not be available for some time.

Causal Factors
• There are gaps in the formal process for managing as-built drawings during Execution
phases. This results in version control issues and, ultimately, in incomplete as-built
drawings.
• There is often a lack of designated drawing ownership and responsibility for updating
as-built drawings and data.
• Projects personnel are more focused on the physical asset; there is a lack of
appreciation for accurate data.
• As the end of the project nears, personnel from each team start to leave as they begin
demobilization.
• The impetus for completing as-built drawings is low, since their impact will come after
most Construction and Commissioning personnel have left the project.
• There often is an incorrect assumption that drawings are accurate.

90
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #7 # Contributors: 20

Causal Factors (continued)

• The atmosphere at project close-out – all parties are trying to hurry up and finish
so they can move to the next project – is not conducive to the meticulous nature of
updating as-built drawings.
• The volume of drawings issued for capital construction is huge, and updating them can
take a lot of time.
• Participants do not fully appreciate accurate data (versus the physical asset).

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Incomplete or incorrect as-built drawings cause more subsequent maintenance,
shutdowns, and trouble on future brownfield projects.
• Potential impacts of subpar as-built drawings include loss of project schedule, cost
impacts from doing corrective work after project close-out, and potential safety issues.
• Conversely, brownfield project design fees can be reduced considerably with accurate
as-built drawings and documentation.
• The next project benefits from accurate as-built drawings of the previous project. If
these plans are incomplete or incorrect, the next project loses that benefit. Problems
from incorrect as-built drawings are manifested during Commissioning and Startup (for
example, during fully integrated tests) – just when they are least welcome.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Require accurate as-built drawings as part of the final turn-over package.
• Train Operations personnel on maintaining the as-built drawings that are provided to
them by the Commissioning team.
• Contractually require a final check of the physical asset against as-built drawings.
Expend the resources to ensure compliance.
• Contractually require progress as-built drawings and documentation through the
Construction phase and link this to approval of monthly requests for payment. The
owner must have quality control personnel available to verify the accuracy of the as-
built drawings and documentation.
• Perform a meticulous walk-down to check the physical asset against as-built drawings
before the final turnover of care, custody, and control.
• Keep paperwork processes as simple as possible.
• Ensure the participation of qualified QA/QC personnel.
• Have documentation control.
• Do training on record-keeping. Some documentation personnel come from
Construction and do not have a culture of good record-keeping.
• Make one or two people accountable for the whole system. When everyone is in
charge, no one is.
• Ensure prioritization and resources for accurate drawing updates at close-out. Assign
responsibility and accountability for this to individuals and follow up on their delivery.

91
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #7 # Contributors: 20

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies (continued)

• Include Maintenance and Operations personnel in project and design processes to
reinforce the need for accurate drawings, since they will be the end-users of the as-
built drawings.
• Utilize a change management system.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technologies [CII 2015]:
–– Smart P&IDs
–– BIM/3D Design Models
–– Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Engineering Management; System Commissioning Teams

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Operations; As-builts, records, data, models, permits, regulatory data,

and other items for handover

Informed: Plant Operations Management; Punch-list/Turnover Coordination

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #7
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

14.1 A master set of asset drawings was readily available and document
control procedures were effective, from construction through final facility
turnover.
14. Accurate
14.2 An asset information plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved by
As-built
the end of detailed design.
Information
14.3 A detailed as-built plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved
by the end of detailed design, and was referenced within the project
execution plan.

92
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #8 # Contributors: 18

Inspection Walkthrough
Complete collaborative inspection walkthrough of tags and systems by the
commissioning manager, the construction contractor, and Operations

Flowchart Activity # 45

Timing
Construction: Late

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Prior to the collaborative inspection, a construction contractor noted 14 punch list items
on a clean utility system walkthrough of a sterile pharmaceutical filling facility. During
the collaborative walkthrough with the Commissioning team, 140 items were noted
as deficient. This extreme discrepancy between Construction’s and Commissioning’s
definitions of mechanical completion resulted in a four-week delay of schedule.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Lack of alignment between parties on what constitutes a complete system.
• Lack of alignment between parties on what is included in inspection walkthroughs, as
well as how detailed they are.
• Punch list items can be missed when the inspection walkthroughs are held too early.
• Sometimes when walkthroughs occur, it is clear that systems are not ready.
Construction may use these to let another party create a work list for them.
• Walkthroughs can involve too many people, and become overly-complicated
procedurally.

Causal Factors
• Inspection walkthroughs of tags and systems at mechanical completion are often
not well defined contractually. The scope of these inspections is often unclear to
construction contractors.
• Mechanical completion is often not well defined contractually. The specifics of what
constitutes a complete system are often understood differently by different parties.
• Some construction contractors tend to push mechanical completion inspection
walkthroughs too early. The walkthroughs occur prior to all mechanical completion,
which generates punch-listing of a significant amount of incomplete work. Too many
obvious punch list items then distract from lesser items, which get missed.
• If QA/QC personnel report to Construction management, they will have a conflict of
interest in qualifying systems that are still deficient.

93
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #8 # Contributors: 18

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Differences in opinion over the scope of mechanical completion or the level of
inspection will slow down work. This can foster bad relations between Construction
and Commissioning, which will further slow the project.
• If Construction is not ready for the scheduled walkthrough, the number of items
discovered will be large, and the walkthrough will need to be rescheduled. This
iteration will delay commissioning.
• If walkthroughs are held long before mechanical completion, obvious items will cause
other, more important items to be missed. This creates inefficiency and rework.
• If proper preparations for walkthroughs have not been completed, these may have to
occur after commissioning has already begun.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Clearly define mechanical completion and the level of inspection for each system in
contract documents.
• Conduct alignment meetings between the parties who will be present at inspection
walkthroughs on the definition of what is agreed to in project contracts.
• Clearly define system limits during detailed design so there is no ambiguity about in
which system a particular component is included.
• Identify a responsible party to assist in the pre-mechanical completion walkthrough
that understands the commissioning prerequisites (e.g., commissioning manager,
construction quality assurance)
• Ensure that QA/QC of construction work is done by personnel who do not have a
conflict of interest.
• Set up a methodology to walk down systems, but only with the disciplines that are
needed for each system.
• Ensure labeling and tagging requirements are correct and included in the project
specifications package.
• Make sure to have proper documentation and signatures on the walk-down forms
(everything should be recorded so that decisions are not lost).
• Try to keep walkthroughs simple, with key people from the necessary disciplines. Too
many people will complicate the process.
• Utilize a change management system.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technology [CII 2015]: Completion Management System.

94
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #8 # Contributors: 18

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management; Commissioning and Startup Management

Accountable: Construction Management

Consulted: Engineering Management; Plant Operations Management ; System

Commissioning Teams

Informed: Project Management ; Operations Readiness Management; Punch-list/

Turnover Coordination; Quality Assurance; Construction Quality Control
(e.g., Weld Inspection, Test Materials, Positive Material Identification)

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #8
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

6. System Milestone
6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into the contract with
Acceptance Criteria
the execution contractor.
and Deliverables

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-

sheets has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project
functions (e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
11. Definition of
construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Tools
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

16. Collaborative
Approach to 16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU managers, were
Construction-CSU conducted starting around 50-percent construction complete.
Turnover

95
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #9 # Contributors: 17

Procure Materials
Procure CSU materials, including spare parts

Flowchart Activity # 13

Timing
Construction: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• In most projects, spares needed for function tests, pre-commissioning, commissioning,
integration, startup, and ramp up must be ordered at nearly the same time as original
equipment orders to avoid delays due to necessary spares being unavailable. In
addition, the owners of the various spare inventories are usually separate entities
within a larger project execution team that usually include Operations & Maintenance.
Identifying the owner or caretaker of each spares order early in the project, ordering
sufficient spares, tracking their delivery, managing the coordination of surplus, and
transferring custody at the end of the project are necessary steps for successfully
completing any major project. Underestimating the time needed for delivery, the
people needed to manage and deliver, and the effort required for coordination are
common shortfalls that can result in significant delays to project timelines and major
deficiencies during post-execution audits.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Materials necessary for Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup are not available as
scheduled.
• It is not known what spare parts have been ordered and/or they are not available when they are
needed.

Causal Factors
• Materials are ordered too late and do not arrive on site until after they are needed.
• Some materials, including spare parts, are not recognized as having long lead-time.
• Spare parts and temporary spools are overlooked or under-estimated during
procurement planning.

96
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #9 # Contributors: 17

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Lack of needed spare parts during commissioning will delay schedule while spares are
ordered and delivered. The project schedule is held up because materials necessary
for pre-commissioning, commissioning, or startup are not available.
• Commissioning personnel have to wait on materials, but are still getting paid for their
time, resulting in a loss of productivity and increased project cost.
• The commissioning team has to wait for temporary parts to be fabricated or ordered.
Using permanent parts in place of temporary ones during commissioning can damage
equipment. This can cause CSU delays or even future shutdowns.
• Long-lead specialty equipment can seriously delay a project if it fails during
commissioning and no spare is available.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure proper and timely procurement of commissioning materials and spares,
especially those needed for pre-commissioning.
• Appoint one or more Commissioning personnel to work with procurement management
early in construction.
• Ensure that there is a procedure for having timely fabrication of temporary spools for
CSU.
• Purchase spare parts separately from the equipment in an itemized order, so that it is
clear what spare parts will be available. Bill spare parts to commissioning and original
equipment to construction.
• Conduct a detailed analysis of how long parts will last, and how likely it is that they will
need to be replaced during Commissioning. Use this as a risk analysis of spares and
make purchases accordingly.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Contracting and Procurement Management

Accountable: Commissioning and Startup Management

Consulted: CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control; CSU Cost
Estimation and Controls; Procurement Expediting; Materials Receipt and
Verification; Warehouse and Storage Management

Informed: Preservation

97
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #9
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been
3. Adequate
derived from knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if
Funding for CSU
needed CSU resources, not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and
Construction/CSU
turnover milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

98
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #10 # Contributors: 17

Utilities
Confirm availability of utilities needed for Pre-Commissioning and
Commissioning

Flowchart Activity # 32

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• Steam blows through plant piping are frequently performed during CSU. Steam
systems require fuel gas, water, and power. Once CSU of gas, water, power, and
steam is achieved, Operations, Maintenance, and HSE must be engaged from that
point on. Project HSE risk increases substantially due to simultaneous operation and
construction activities.
• Clean utilities on pharmaceutical projects are some of the first systems that need to
be delivered for commissioning. Delay of delivery of these systems will mean that
commissioning cannot proceed. On one pharmaceutical plant project clean utilities
systems were delivered six months behind schedule on a project with an original
scheduled duration of four years.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Utility systems needed for pre-commissioning and commissioning are not yet available.
• Utility providers can have extensive time requirements to accommodate requests.
• Instrument/utility air systems are essential for commissioning, yet sometimes are not
complete by the scheduled start of commissioning.

Causal Factors
• Vendor documentation/O&M manuals do not readily provide information on equipment/
system utility needs.
• Construction schedules are made to make construction more efficient, but not
necessarily to deliver systems in the necessary order.
• The CSU execution plan and integrated Construction-CSU schedule may not consider
utility needs for Pre-Commissioning/Commissioning.
• The contractor may not construct in the correct order to be able to deliver the utilities
systems first.
• There is a lack of handoff of utilities to Operations after CSU, lack of handoff to plant
HSE, and lack of recognition of simultaneous Operations and Construction activities.
• The pre-commissioning scope of work is not well defined, or is not defined at all. The
needs for utilities during pre-commissioning may be unknown by the construction team.
• There is a lack of systems-thinking from FEED onward on projects.

99
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #10 # Contributors: 17

Causal Factors (continued)

• Utility companies work on their own schedules and priorities. They can be difficult to
coordinate with, require notice long in advance, and their dependability varies from
place to place.
• Utility companies typically have their own standard installation specifications
and details which they require to connect to their services. Certain materials and
equipment might be special-order. Any deviation in these specifications could cause
delays.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Startup is delayed because pre-commissioning/commissioning was delayed due to
utilities being unavailable.
• Commissioning personnel end up with a shorter window to work in, and must
resource-overload to meet their schedule. CSU efforts can be intense, resulting in
more mistakes.
• Poor coordination of HSE or lock-out/tag-out (LOTO) can result in injury or loss of life
when systems are energized.
• Out-of-date or absent emergency preparedness plan.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Align on the pre-commissioning scope of work early in the project and include it in
contract documents.
• Develop a commissioning and startup matrix that includes the utilities and temporary
systems needed for CSU.
• Transition to systems-based completion at the appropriate time, and focus first on
systems that are required for safety/utilities/control.
• Construction scheduling should consider the critical path for commissioning activities,
including having the right utility supports in-place.
• Require vendors/OEMs to provide detailed information on the utility needs of their
equipment/materials.
• Require direct and periodic contact/communication with respective utility providers to
confirm utilities service interface requirements, inspection schedule, and connection
schedule.
• Include milestones for completion of utility systems and coordination with utility
companies in the detailed CSU execution plan.
• Require HSE/LOTO to sign-off on systems before they are energized.
• Make contingency plans (and budgets) for when a utility might not be available on time.
For example, if utility air is not available, rent compressors.
• Plan and manage the Project HSE-to-Operations HSE handoff for utilities.

100
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #10 # Contributors: 17

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: HSE Management; Operations Readiness Management; Commissioning

and Startup Management; Plant Operations Management

Informed: Regulatory Compliance; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination; LOTO/

Permit-to-work

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #10
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

7. CSU System
7.1 Formal CSU design review has occurred by the end of front end
Engineering during
engineering.
FEED

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s

CSU sequence (including all system, subsystems and related
dependencies), with formal recognition of all critical sequences and
8. Recognition of was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of
detailed design and took into consideration timely completion of life-
safety and process safety systems, control systems, utility systems,
and process systems, among others.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

101
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #10
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

10.1 Finalization of CSU sequence, depicting all systems, subsystems,

and associated dependencies.
10. System-focus in
Detailed Design
10.2 Commissioning test procedures were completed by the end of
detailed design.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and
Construction/CSU
turnover milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning integrated

schedule by the 30-percent construction complete milestone.
15. Transition to
15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of check-sheets during
Systems-based
construction.
Management
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list management,
led by CSU team.

16. Collaborative
Approach to 16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU managers, were
Construction-CSU conducted starting around 50-percent construction complete.
Turnover

102
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #11 # Contributors: 16

Kickoff Alignment
Conduct Construction-CSU alignment meeting on the execution plan

Flowchart Activity # 1

Timing
Construction: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• On a recent project in China, the Construction manager’s interpretation of mechanical
completion (MC) and the CSU manager’s expectations for turnover were vastly
different. Construction and CSU held several alignment meetings to clearly define
what Construction needed to do and provide prior to CSU, but issues continued to
occur. In short, Construction was using CSU as a way to develop their final punch list,
resulting in cost and schedule over-runs. Issues encountered included the following:
–– Systems were not complete – the MC walk-down identified many items where the
system was not finished (e.g., wiring not terminated at the respective components,
insulation not installed, valves not operating or broken, fire damper cabling not
connected).
–– Documentation was not complete – turn-over binders were missing content or
had incomplete information, and forms were completed incorrectly.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• No Construction-CSU alignment meeting is ever held.
• The Construction-CSU alignment meeting is held too late.
• All key stakeholders do not always attend the Construction-CSU alignment meeting.
• All stakeholders do not always buy in or adhere to the overall project goals.
• Despite attending the meeting, Construction and CSU still had misunderstandings
about the scope of work.
• Proper meeting minutes are not always kept, and sign-offs are not always done.

Causal Factors
• Changes in personnel after the original meeting.
• Common industry terms are understood differently by different parties.
• Individuals’ lack of experience with performing construction and construction quality
assurance.
• Individuals do not understand CSU requirements.
• Conflicts of interest arise, because the construction company is also the construction
quality assurance company.
• Pressure is placed on project schedule.
• CSU execution practices vary widely across the industry.

103
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #11 # Contributors: 16

Causal Factors (continued)

• Project management personnel lack knowledge of the complexities and time
requirements of commissioning.
• Construction management is sometimes unaware of the requirements for
commissioning.
• Holding alignment meetings does not guarantee alignment among the parties.
• Alignment meetings may only be held in reaction to problems occurring on a project,
whereas the most benefit will be achieved by aligning in order to prevent problems.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Delays, cost impacts, and conflicts result from poor alignment.
• Items agreed upon during an alignment meeting may be changed later.
• Without an alignment meeting, the Commissioning team will not know what is expected
of it, other than what is written in the project specifications.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure that alignment is obligated contractually.
• Ensure that all relevant stakeholders attend the CSU alignment meeting.
• Bring construction managers onto the project early, even as early as the Design
phase. This gives them a chance to familiarize with, and contribute to, planning for
commissioning activities, especially for brownfield projects.
• Sign-off and archiving of the Construction-CSU alignment meeting by all stakeholders,
with any new/replacement stakeholders also required to sign-off.
• Periodic review of alignment goals, with modifications as necessary, and sign-offs by
all stakeholders.
• Ensure that project organization silos do not prevent communication between, and
alignment of, project personnel at all levels.
• Ensure and communicate the owner’s commitment to successful commissioning –
including committing the necessary resources and funding.
• Utilize a risk assessment system.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: HSE Management; Operations Readiness Management; Commissioning

and Startup Management; Plant Operations Management

Informed: Regulatory Compliance; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination; LOTO/

Permit-to-work

104
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #11
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

2. Critical Interfaces 2.1 Project team has identified all tie-ins and individual shut-downs
on Brownfield by 30-percent detailed design complete; and these have been
Projects integrated into the construction-CSU integrated schedule.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been
3. Adequate
derived from knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if
Funding for CSU
needed CSU resources, not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

6. System Milestone
6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into the contract with
Acceptance Criteria
the execution contractor.
and Deliverables

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the project’s

CSU sequence (including all system, subsystems and related
dependencies), with formal recognition of all critical sequences and
8. Recognition of was finalized by end of detailed design.
CSU Sequence
Drivers 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed by the end of
detailed design and took into consideration timely completion of life-
safety and process safety systems, control systems, utility systems,
and process systems, among others.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and
Construction/CSU
turnover milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

105
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #12 # Contributors: 13

Construction Turnover Packages

Define system construction turnover packages

Flowchart Activity # 19

Timing
Construction: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Process piping in an animal health manufacturing facility requires weld inspection,
slope verification, and vent/drain verification in accordance with the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers Best Practice. The weld inspection is required to
be conducted during the welding process in conjunction with the contractor’s weld
examination process. One project neglected to employ a weld inspector. This was
not known until Construction quality assurance identified the gap several weeks after
welding had been completed by reviewing the turnover package. The instructions to
have a weld inspection were included in the project specifications, and the work was
to be performed by the owner after notification by the contractor. The project manager,
commissioning manager, and contractor all missed the requirement. Contributing
factors were that these three parties were new to pharmaceutical manufacturing, and
they shared the following shortcomings:
–– They did not understand the requirement for both a weld examination and weld
inspection.
–– They did not pay close attention to the documentation requirements for process
piping as outlined in both the specification and turnover package requirements.
As a result, additional cost was incurred and system turnover was delayed by two
weeks so the system could be properly inspected and documented.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• There often is a lack of alignment on what to include in turnover packages.
• System packages are often ill-defined and piecemeal. Some important elements can
be missed at the interfaces between systems.
• Some parts of the plant do not belong to one particular system, and thus are often
missed when system turnover packages are created.
• Communication of late process changes is often slow and disorganized.
• Projects often do not pay attention to turnover packages until it is time to construct the
first packages.
• Turnover package requirements are sometimes too complex.

106
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #12 # Contributors: 13

Causal Factors
• Requirements for construction turnover packages are often not well defined in contract
documents.
• Construction relies on engineering for the most current revision of documents
delivered to the field. Without good communication of design change documents,
submission of turnover packages will be negatively impacted.
• Incomplete system definition can cause problems when trying to create turnover
packages.
• There is often a lack of client review/approval of systems. Plant personnel are very
busy and do not have time to review and approve all of the system definitions.
• Turnover packages are often not viewed as urgent, so they are put off. Further, there
is a general dislike of paperwork. The meticulous attention required to construct a
turnover package is something that most would rather avoid.
• In a contract bidding situation, the construction contractor usually has no say as
to the terms of the contract, including those regarding turnover packages. Owner
organizations can impose onerous and complicated requirements without any input
from the construction contractor.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Disagreement about or ignorance of requirements for turnover packages will lead to
frustration on all sides, as turnover packages have to be redone. System turnover can
be held up solely due to turnover packages.
• Without the most current design change documentation, the construction contractor
will have to scramble to find and address changes that have been made in-field related
to turnover packages. This will have negative cost and schedule impacts.
• Projects can have significant delays from mechanical completion walkthroughs until
turnover due solely to turnover package paperwork.
• By including overly complicated turnover package requirements in a contract, an owner
organization may inadvertently delay the project without adding value.
• Complicated turnover packages might cause the execution team to take shortcuts and
cause an unsafe condition or risk the quality of the work.

107
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #12 # Contributors: 13

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Define requirements for turnover packages more specifically, including schedule
milestones and definition of terms.
• Define turnover requirements in the construction contract.
• Ensure the establishment of standard communication for process change
documentation from Engineering to the Construction Contractor.
• Coordinate system turnover package definition tasks with client and other project
stakeholders to ensure their involvement and approval.
• Assign one or more turnover package managers.
• Owners should make an effort to reduce the complexity of turnover package
requirements.
• Ensure that a good turnover package software/tool is in place.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technologies [CII 2015]:
–– Smart P&IDs
–– Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation
–– Completion Management Systems.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Engineering Management; Construction Management; Commissioning

and Startup Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Operations; Quality Assurance; Construction Quality Control (e.g., Weld

Inspection, Test Materials, Positive Material Identification)

Informed: Regulatory Compliance; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS Coordination

108
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #12
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

6. System Milestone
6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into the contract with
Acceptance Criteria
the execution contractor.
and Deliverables

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-

sheets has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project
functions (e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
11. Definition of
construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Tools
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

14.1 A master set of asset drawings was readily available and

document control procedures were effective, from construction
through final facility turnover.

14. Accurate As- 14.2 An asset information plan has been defined, reviewed, and
built Information approved by the end of detailed design.

14.3 A detailed as-built plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved
by the end of detailed design, and was referenced within the
project execution plan.

16. Collaborative
Approach to 16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU managers, were
Construction-CSU conducted starting around 50-percent construction complete.
Turnover

109
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #13 # Contributors: 15

Start Maintenance
Initiate maintenance procedures

Flowchart Activity # 109

Timing
Startup: Early

Project Context/Example Scenarios

• Certain permanent equipment (e.g., blowers, fans, or HVAC units) might need to
be installed and operating during the Construction phase, but prior to CSU. This
equipment tends to be subject to severe dust exposure due to construction activity,
which can clog filters. It is important to initiate a maintenance procedure as soon as
the equipment is put into operation.
• On a $579-million nuclear waste processing facility in Idaho, maintenance personnel
were pulled in from the overall site organization (i.e., from other facilities at the same
site). These maintenance personnel did not feel ownership over the project, since
they would not be at the site permanently. On a complex simulant run, the system
instrumentation calibration was not logged. This caused a three-week delay to get the
instrumentation calibrated and logged correctly, and cost $5 million of extra work-
hours to figure it out.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Maintenance procedures are initiated too late or neglected.
• The commissioning team is not notified of ongoing maintenance on brownfield projects.

Causal Factors
• Some systems, such as utilities systems, begin operation long before others, and
Maintenance staff are not yet on site to initiate maintenance procedures.
• The gradual handover of systems to the Operations team makes it more difficult to staff
initial maintenance of the facility.
• There is often a lack of alignment between Operations & Maintenance (O&M) and
Commissioning on brownfield projects.
• The Design and Operations groups are so siloed that designers have little interaction
with field personnel or first-hand experience with O&M.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Failing to initiate the maintenance protocols will result in accelerated deterioration of
equipment/systems and eventually premature shutdowns.
• Expenditure on reactionary maintenance during initial operations will be higher.
• Given maintenance problems, the facility may not reach its output capacity for an
extended period of time.

110
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #13 # Contributors: 15

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Align maintenance staff as a part of the Operations team early on.
• Do not allow turnover of a system from Commissioning to Operations until
maintenance personnel for that system are on site.
• Integrate O&M personnel as part of the joint-review of the plant design. This should
ensure at least some measure of design for operability/design for maintainability.
• Maintenance personnel (that support the project) should have helped create the asset
maintenance strategy back in late FEED/Basic Design or early in Detailed Design. This
early involvement will help ensure their buy-in to the process and effort.
• Use maintenance personnel who are dedicated to the project. This should help ensure
that they feel ownership over the project and plant.
• Use vendors with high-quality maintenance procedures and resources. Bring vendor
representatives to the site to train plant maintenance personnel on how to perform
maintenance on their equipment.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technologies [CII 2015]:
–– Simulation-based Virtual Commissioning
–– Operator Training.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Maintenance

Accountable: Plant Operations Management

Consulted:

Informed: Commissioning and Startup Management; System Commissioning Teams

111
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #13
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

2. Critical Interfaces 2.1 Project team has identified all tie-ins and individual shut-downs
on Brownfield by 30-percent detailed design complete; and these have been
Projects integrated into the construction-CSU integrated schedule.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-

sheets has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project
functions (e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
11. Definition of
construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Tools
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

112
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #14 # Contributors: 15

O&M Involvement
Identify and integrate key Operations & Maintenance personnel and supporting
organizations

Flowchart Activity # 5

Timing
Construction: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• A typical project, during the transition from Construction to Commissioning, assembles
several work forces that generally have not worked together as a team before (i.e.,
Operations & Maintenance, Construction, and Commissioning work forces). The need
for a common vision of the effort, a unified command and recognized leader, and
appropriate framework for allocation of tasks is required to minimize cost, time, and
frustration among contributors. In order to be successful, the leader must be able
to engage necessary SMEs, equipment providers, and – equally important – those
who will ultimately be responsible for the Operations & Maintenance (O&M) of the
finished plant. The organization of the effort must be thorough, but also flexible
enough to respond to difficulties (including those that arise through incomplete
construction). Integrating the unique tasks required to move from Construction through
Commissioning, and finally to Startup and Operations, must begin at the earliest
possible part of the project, since the allocation of responsibilities depends on the
resources utilized and the uniqueness of the facilities being assembled.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• The necessary human resources are unavailable or unknown. It is difficult to get good
operations personnel on the job early, because they are busy with the operations of
the plant or other jobs.
• Roles and responsibilities are often unclear.
• Proper coordination of SME support for CSU rarely occurs.
• O&M support is poorly funded.

Causal Factors
• Key O&M human resources are too busy with their day-to-day work to support CSU.
• Operations personnel may not be interested in participating in the project at this point;
changes to the plant only become important to them the day they begin to operate it.
• Key O&M human resources are retiring.
• In some sectors, and on most greenfield projects, experienced and capable operators
are relatively few, so it can be difficult to get them on a project as early as this stage.
• Difficulty in hiring additional staff – unionized organizations (e.g., government) have
rigid hiring and firing policies, which makes it difficult to scale up a project team for a
brief period of time.

113
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #14 # Contributors: 15

Causal Factors (continued)

• Conflicting priorities between Projects and O&M groups. For example, plant operations
wants to maximize annual operations and sales, while the project team wants to get
the project commissioned and turned over, requiring much downtime.
• Disagreement on the benefit for O&M personnel to be integrated into the project (i.e., it
may be hard to get O&M management buy-in).
• Operations, Maintenance, SMEs, and other non-project stakeholders are not aligned
with the vision for the project, and lack motivation to assist proactively.
• The value of including SMEs during CSU is not properly understood.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Without proper support from Operations, Maintenance, SMEs, and other stakeholders
outside the project team, the CSU team will need to scramble to resolve issues rather
than preventing them.
• Lack of required O&M resources can make the eventual turn-over to Operations
difficult, as the O&M groups will not be as familiar with the new equipment. This will
lead to startup cost and schedule impacts to the project venture.
• Any number of technical issues with the final plant might have been caught by
experienced O&M personnel, had they been involved with the project earlier.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Create drivers for stakeholders outside the project team to align with the vision for the
project and help deliver.
• The CSU team should spend the necessary time aligning within the group as well as
with the project team.
• Coordinate early with SMEs and take advantage of their expertise to ensure CSU
success.
• Establish resource requirements and commitments early during the FEED phase.
• Execute a CSU charter that identifies resource expectations and involvement. Have it
signed by both the project manager and plant operations management.
• Ensure that O&M management deliverables and targets are compatible with the
project goals.
• Maintain a project succession plan for all key personnel, including plans for a shadow/
alternate for each key operations position.
• Conduct risk analysis meetings with O&M personnel participation. Make assignments
for risk mitigation of specific items so that there is not confusion about who is
responsible for what between disciplines/organizations.

114
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #14 # Contributors: 15

RACI Designations

Responsible: Operations Readiness Management

Accountable: Plant Operations Management

Consulted: Commissioning and Startup Management; Punch-list/Turnover

Coordination; Operations; Maintenance

Informed: Construction Management; System Commissioning Teams; Operations &

Maintenance Training

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #14
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

2. Critical Interfaces 2.1 Project team has identified all tie-ins and individual shut-downs
on Brownfield by 30-percent detailed design complete; and these have been
Projects integrated into the construction-CSU integrated schedule.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been
3. Adequate
derived from knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if
Funding for CSU
needed CSU resources, not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well

understood among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions
Capability
and the technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

115
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #15 # Contributors: 14

Familiarize Operations
Familiarize Operations personnel with equipment during factory acceptance tests
or on-site

Flowchart Activity # 30

Timing
Construction: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Several variable air volume (VAV) terminals are being installed in a new laboratory
building. The operations personnel, commissioning owner’s representative, and the
quality control inspector regularly walk the job site and notice that the contractor is
staging new VAV terminals boxes on site to be installed in the ceiling space at a later
date. They casually look at the model number of the VAV terminals’ name plate in
the box but do not cross-reference it with the approved submittal. After all 156 VAV
terminals have been installed in the project, the controls contractor finds out during
the pre-functional check-out that the controllers in the installed VAV terminals do not
correspond with the approved submittals. All the controllers had to be removed from
the VAV terminals above the ceiling and new ones installed. Had the commissioning
owner’s representative or the operations personnel or the quality control inspector
cross-referenced the equipment name plate with the approved submittal while the VAV
terminals were staged on the floor, they would have discovered the discrepancy in the
model numbers and prevented additional cost and time to the project.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Operations personnel do not participate in the project early enough.
• Factory acceptance tests (FAT) are not completed properly. There is an assumption
when equipment arrives to site that it is the correct item and in good working order.

116
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #15 # Contributors: 14

Causal Factors
• Operations personnel are not available or have not yet been selected for the project.
–– Operators are in short supply.
–– Greenfield project has not yet been able to hire operators.
–– Operators are reluctant to participate so early in the project.
–– Operators are busy operating the existing facility (brownfield) or other facilities
(greenfield), and management may be reluctant to staff up before they feel it is
absolutely necessary.
–– The cost of having operators on the job “before there is anything to operate” is
perceived as wasted money from the business case perspective.
• New processes or equipment types require an investment in the “learning curve.”
Inexperienced operators hired for a greenfield project may not be able to learn during
FAT what they really need to know about the equipment.
• The project site and location of FAT may be far apart with poor transportation to or from
remote locations, making attendance at FATs difficult, inconvenient, and expensive.
• Operations personnel are inconsistently involved.
• Other work is perceived to be more urgent than familiarizing Operations personnel with
equipment before it is installed and online.
• Because the supply chain for equipment is not transparent, Commissioning and
Construction personnel may not know when equipment will arrive or where it is on-site
once it does arrive. This makes the familiarization and training of Operations personnel
on site more difficult.
• Budget constraints can minimize travel ,and thus reduce the number of FAT
observations.

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Operations personnel will eventually run the plant. If they are not familiar with the
equipment it will take longer to ramp up to full production capacity.
• Equipment failures may occur after Commissioning personnel have left the project,
because Operations personnel were not familiar enough with equipment to operate it
properly.
• Questions posed and issues raised by operators during equipment familiarization can
prevent problems and delays during Commissioning.
• Involvement of operators who did not participate in the PSM process leads to repetition
and re-hashing of the PSM process. Any late changes need to be processed via the
same PSM committee for “management of change.” The value of this input will be lost
if operators are not included.

117
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #15 # Contributors: 14

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure that contracts with OEMs/suppliers include provisions for FAT/SAT
participation.
• Bring key Operations personnel on the project early enough for them to participate in
equipment familiarization during FAT or on-site (or both).
• Implement equipment tracking solutions so that the location and status of equipment
is always known. This will make equipment familiarization much more efficient and
effective.
• If equipment familiarization did not occur during the Construction phase, do it
during Pre-Commissioning or even during Commissioning. While this timing is less
convenient, it will still educate operators and help prevent problems during initial
operations.
• Ensure that budgets, contracts, and staffing allow for Commissioning and Operations
personnel to be involved in the project early enough to have time to become familiar
with equipment.
• Preservation and many Pre-Commissioning/Commissioning tests and checks are
activities that Operations personnel should be committed to and participate in,
because they will be most effected by how well the equipment operates.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technologies [CII 2015]:
–– Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation
–– Simulation-based Virtual Commissioning
–– Operator Training

RACI Designations

Responsible: Construction Management; Commissioning and Startup Management;

Operations & Maintenance Training

Accountable: Plant Operations Management

Consulted: Engineering Management; Contracting and Procurement Management;

OEM/Supplier

Informed: Operations Readiness Management

118
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #15
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget has been
3. Adequate
derived from knowledge of CSU strategy and scope of work, and if
Funding for CSU
needed CSU resources, not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well

understood among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions
Capability
and the technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

119
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #16 # Contributors: 15

Loop and I/O Checks

Conduct loop checks and input/output (I/O) point-to-point checks

Flowchart Activity # 63

Timing
Pre-Commissioning: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• On a pharmaceutical project, the contract provided only vague direction to the
construction contractor on the controls system. The project engineer in charge did not
understand the nuances of the deliverables for a controls system, and consequently
loop checks, input/output checks, and other tests and checks were not performed
on the controls system. When the Commissioning phase began, it became clear that
many of these checks had not been completed and that the startup of the controls
system would not be successful as-delivered. Owner instrumentation and controls
experts had to be brought onto the project late to fix the controls system problems.
This was an expensive and slow process.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Some systems are missed during loop and input/output (I/O) checks.
• The procedure used to conduct loop and I/O checks may not meet the standard
desired by CSU.
• There may be a lack of prioritization for these activities by project team members.
• There may be a lack of agreement on the execution of loop check procedure.
• Insufficient resources and inadequate schedule allocation are common for this type of
work.
• I/O checks are often not done properly.

Causal Factors
• Because loop and I/O checks are one of the first pre-commissioning activities, they are
often not performed carefully.
• Project management personnel often lack technical understanding of controls systems.
• There is often a lack of alignment between construction and CSU teams on the
requirements/procedure for loop and I/O checks.
• There is often a lack of training to identify loop check failures in complex systems.
• Loop folders are often not complete (missing or outdated documents) or are completed
late.

120
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #16 # Contributors: 15

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• If systems are missed during loop and I/O checks, unresolved problems will not be
discovered until later in CSU. These can take a lot of time to find and fix, and cause
startup delay.
• If Construction and CSU are not aligned on the standards for loop and I/O checks,
some checks will have to be repeated or reworked, taking more work-hours and
causing delay. Or, undiscovered problems may show up later when they are more
difficult to find and resolve.
• While mechanical or architectural mistakes draw attention to themselves, controls
systems mistakes often go unnoticed through startup and operations. Controls
systems are sometimes even used to conceal equipment underperformance. If the
proper tests and checks are not conducted during commissioning, the entire plant may
run at far from optimal levels, for years.
• Startup testing of systems by use of the main control system (DCS) is a significant
enhancement to eventual operation of the facility. Schedule improvements for testing
activities are difficult to achieve until this scope of work has been completed.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Contractual terms need to support the time and resources necessary for these checks.
• Procedures for controls system tests and checks must be identified, completed, and
documented early in the Detailed Design phase.
• Align construction and CSU on the standards and procedure for loop and I/O checks of
systems. If possible, reference these standards and procedures in contract documents.
• Follow a CSU plan to define requirements for all Commissioning efforts and quality
assurance checks.
• Assign CSU personnel to perform or witness loop and I/O checks, rather than
Construction personnel.
• Provide knowledgeable technical human resources to perform quality assurance tasks,
specific to controls systems.
• Prepare the loop folders early.
• Test third-party interfaces as part of the DCS FAT testing.
• Perform QC on installations to ensure the work was performed according to the loop
and I/O check procedures.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technology [CII 2015]: Asset Data Management/Wireless Instrumentation.

RACI Designations
Responsible: Electrical; Automation/DCS; Instrumentation and Controls; System
Commissioning Teams
Accountable: Commissioning and Startup Management
Consulted:
Informed: CSU Planning, Progress Tracking, and Schedule Control; Systems
Completions Database and Support; OEM/Supplier

121
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #16
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-

sheets has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project
functions (e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
11. Definition of
construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Tools
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

13. Integrated
13.1 Project schedule included system logic interdependencies and
Construction/CSU
turnover milestones prior to 30-percent construction complete.
Schedule

122
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #17 # Contributors: 15

System Walk-downs
Conduct system walk-downs for turnovers

Flowchart Activity # 94

Timing
Commissioning: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• In a typical project, during the transition from Construction to Commissioning, several
work forces are being assembled that have generally not worked together as a team
(Operations & Maintenance, Construction, and Commissioning work forces). The need
for a common vision of the effort, a unified command and recognized leader, and
appropriate framework for allocation of tasks is required to minimize cost, time, and
frustration among contributors. One of the key outcomes of the CSU effort is walking
down the completed and commissioned systems for turnover to begin Startup and
Operations. Early agreement on what is involved in the walk-down effort, the people
that must be part of the effort, and assignment of resources to address identified
punch list items are critical to avoiding project delays caused by re-doing the walk-
downs numerous times in an uncoordinated fashion, which generally indicates lack of
teamwork and/or a unified vision toward completion and safe, successful startup.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• The complete scope of walk-downs is often not communicated or understood by the
parties involved.
• It is difficult to schedule walk-downs near the end of the project due to schedule
pressures, limited resources, and conflicting priorities.
• On small projects, no one individual may be responsible for coordinating walk-downs.
• System walk-downs that are done too late reveal problems, leading to changes late in
the project.
• System walk-downs may take longer than expected.

Causal Factors
• Construction and CSU do not align on what is included in system walk-downs.
• The correct personnel for the walk-downs may not be available, as they already have
moved on to other projects.
• The scope of walk-downs and associated contractual requirements are insufficiently
defined.
• Stakeholders have different expectations about what makes a system ready for startup.
• Operations personnel are not available during Pre-Commissioning/Commissioning to
identify problems.
• The duration of walk-downs and the manpower required are not accurately assessed
during CSU planning.

123
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #17 # Contributors: 15

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Frustration results from disagreements over what is included in system walk-downs
and relations between the construction and commissioning teams subsequently
deteriorate.
• System walk-downs done too late or without correct scope definition delay the project
schedule.
• Problems discovered during walk-downs precipitate late changes and delay CSU.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Align on the scope of system walk-downs early, and include a specific definition in
contract documents.
• Ensure the timely participation and sign-off of Operations personnel during the Design
phase in order to avoid late changes.
• Ensure that each system has an individual identified as responsible for coordinating
that system’s walk-down for turnover.
• Accurately assess the time and manpower required for system walk-downs during
CSU planning.
• Remove and replace individual contributors that are not dedicated to coordinated,
unified walk-downs and team unity among all the contributors.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technology [CII 2015]: Completion Management Systems.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management; Punch-list/Turnover

Coordination

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: CSU SMEs/Engineering Support; Plant Operations Management

Informed: System Commissioning Teams; Permitting; CSU Planning, Progress

Tracking, and Schedule Control; Systems Completions Database and
Support

124
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #17
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

6. System Milestone
6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into the contract with
Acceptance Criteria
the execution contractor.
and Deliverables

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-

sheets has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project
functions (e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
11. Definition of
construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Tools
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning integrated

schedule by the 30-percent construction complete milestone.
15. Transition to
15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of check-sheets during
Systems-based
construction.
Management
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list management,
led by CSU team.

125
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #18 # Contributors: 13

HAZOP Closure
Verify closure of HAZOP action items

Flowchart Activity # 118

Timing
Project Close-out

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Bad impacts result when a project progresses to mechanical, electrical,
instrumentation (MEI) completion and readiness for Construction to hand off to CSU
without full closure of all HAZOP action items. Closure of some HAZOP action items
can result in design change, which delays construction completion and increases
cost. Or, closure of a HAZOP action item is compromised and approved without an
appropriate design change, thereby increasing the risk profile of project.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• HAZOP action items have not been closed and/or other related risks still exist at initial
operation.
• The HAZOP review is not always completed prior to commissioning.
• HAZOP items listed post-startup linger and do not get closed out.
• Operations personnel add items to the HAZOP review that are not safety-related.
• A lack of resources at the end of the project for closing out lower-priority items means
that some less important items just do not get finished at all.

Causal Factors
• Changes made to the facility design post-HAZOP may not get risk-assessed.
• Closing HAZOP items is time consuming, detailed, an undesirable task, and requires a
high level of technical expertise.
• An 80/20 mentality is applied in a zero-tolerance context
• Cost-cutting pressures, if the project is over-budget.
• There may not have been an assigned responsible party for identifying HAZOP items
or for determining the risk profile.
• HAZOP action items often result from late design changes, and thus impact
construction sequencing and productivity. For these reasons action items may not be
closed or completed.
• The only chance for Operations personnel to ask for changes may be during the
HAZOP review, so they erroneously add HAZOP action items under operability
justifications.

126
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #18 # Contributors: 13

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Failure to close/complete HAZOP action items can result in safety risk exposure,
injuries, and fatalities.
• Putting off the closure of HAZOP actions items results in more delay and change when
they are finally completed.
• Open HAZOP action items reflect badly on the project during corporate or other audits.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• All changes and as-built redlines post-HAZOP must be documented and properly risk-
assessed.
• Assign the parties responsible for closing HAZOP action items during the HAZOP
review.
• An effective, rigorous management of change (MOC) program must be in effect at the
start of initial operation.
• Require the closure of HAZOP action items before startup/operations on safe mode.
• Closure of HAZOP action items should be tracked in the detailed project schedule.
• HAZOP completion and close-out documentation should be a requirement for the pre-
startup safety review (PSSR).
• Develop detailed commissioning sequence packages and perform a HAZOP review for
each sequence.
• Ensure effective implementation of MOC and alternate operating procedure programs.
• Give Operations personnel adequate opportunities to make design changes outside
the HAZOP review, so they do not feel the need to add operability issues as HAZOP
action items.
• Create a detailed definition/formulation for which items qualify as HAZOP items.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Engineering Management; Risk Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: HSE Management; Plant Operations Management; HSE/Safety/SIMOPS

Coordination; Quality Assurance; Construction Quality Control (e.g., Weld
Inspection, Test Materials, Positive Material Identification)

Informed: Business Unit Management; Commissioning and Startup Management

127
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #18
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-

sheets has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project
functions (e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
11. Definition of
construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Tools
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well

understood among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions
Capability
and the technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

14.1 A master set of asset drawings was readily available and

document control procedures were effective, from construction
through final facility turnover.

14. Accurate As- 14.2 An asset information plan has been defined, reviewed, and
built Information approved by the end of detailed design.

14.3 A detailed as-built plan has been defined, reviewed, and approved
by the end of detailed design, and was referenced within the
project execution plan.

128
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #19 # Contributors: 11

Operation Test Procedures

Finalize approval of Commissioning operation test procedures

Flowchart Activity # 37

Timing
Commissioning: Mid

Project Context/Example Scenario

• Getting operation test procedures finalized early enough is a struggle on many
projects. Projects are not staffed early enough with experienced Operations/
Commissioning personnel, and the result is re-work of test procedures during project
execution. In many cases, design changes and additions occur too late in execution to
support testing (requiring addition of temporary equipment or rework). For example, on
a relatively small project ($15 million) where this occurred, operational test procedures
were not written until 50% complete construction. Late-added scope of a temporary
recycle line from pump discharge back to tank was required to support full function
tests of pumps, filters, and controls.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• Different stakeholders make decisions that may not be correct because the operation
test procedures have not yet been created.
• The test procedures are produced too late, which leads to a lesser quality product with
insufficient time to properly review/provide comments.
• The operation test procedures are technically unsound or contradictory.
• Ineffective operation test procedures could lead to increased downtime during initial
startup (if the right system functions are not checked, trips may occur during operation).

Causal Factors
• The operation test procedures are not defined early enough in the project.
• There is a lack of continuity (or availability) of documentation, making it difficult to
create good operation test procedures.
• Personnel that have experience with operational testing are not typically staffed on the
project early enough to include meaningful input.
• Insufficient CSU experience, which can lead to inadequate commissioning procedures.
• Over-reliance on subcontractor procedures. Insufficient prime contractor procedures
for pulling/coordinating all of the subcontractor procedures together.
• Delay in receiving subcontractor test procedures, especially for customized equipment
which requires customized operational test procedures.
• Turn-over of key Operations/Commissioning personnel.

129
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #19 # Contributors: 11

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• Correcting stakeholder differences of opinion created by a lack of operation test
procedure can impact both cost and schedule.
• Contradictory or deficient operation test procedures resulting from a lack of continuity
of documentation will cause confusion and gaps in operation testing, potentially
leading to unplanned downtime post-startup.
• Insufficient test procedures can lead to:
–– A less safe commissioning process.
–– Delays to the project schedule.
–– Improperly tested equipment.
–– Damage to components.
–– Needing additional funds later to fix the test procedures and/or re-do the test.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Ensure consistency and continuity of documentation: vendor information à function
specifications à test plan à commissioning plan à acceptance results.
• Align on and define operation test procedures early.
• Staff one or two key personnel, with experience in operational testing, early enough to
provide meaningful input to test development.
• Provide experienced Commissioning personnel during the Design phase to ensure
that means for commissioning are built into design (i.e., tie-in points for temporary
equipment, recycle piping for prime movers or station recycle means, tie-ins for
flushing equipment, and temporary power).
• Insert wording in the prime and subcontractor contracts for providing test procedures
in a timely fashion with some schedule float.
• Vet the commissioning team to ensure sufficient commissioning experience, and that
the construction contractor is using capable personnel on the project.
• Ensure that systems (especially safety systems) are functional before the operational
tests are conducted.
• This hot spot can be prevented or mitigated with the following Innovative CSU
Technologies [CII 2015]:
–– Simulation-based Virtual Commissioning
–– Operator Training.

RACI Designations

Responsible: System Commissioning Teams

Accountable: Commissioning and Startup Management

Consulted: Engineering Management; Plant Operations Management; OEM/Supplier

Informed: Project Management

130
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #19
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning check-

sheets has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key project
functions (e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
11. Definition of
construction.
CSU Check-sheets,
Procedures, and
11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and commissioning test
Tools
procedures has been defined, reviewed, and approved by key
project functions (construction, commissioning, operations, and
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system prior to
construction and/or module fabrication.

131
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #20 # Contributors: 10

Team Building
Conduct Construction-CSU team building

Flowchart Activity # 2

Timing
Commissioning: Early

Project Context/Example Scenario

• The larger the project, the more distant teams become both geographically and/
or functionally. Likewise, larger projects have greater durations and are more likely
to have personnel continuity disruptions. Physical distance, individual goals, and
personnel changes are barriers to effective communication. Without frequent and
effective communication between teams, systems completion may not occur in the
optimum order or worse become dysfunctional by improperly prioritizing critical
path scheduling and systems completion sequence. Frequent or routine alignment
workshops and team-building sessions can break down and/or eliminate cross-team
communication barriers.

Alleged Common Deficiencies

• There is often a general lack of communication and teamwork between construction
and CSU teams on capital projects.
• There is a lack of trust between Construction and CSU teams.

Causal Factors
• There is often a lack of shared responsibility for project success between Construction,
CSU, Engineering Design, Operations, and other parties, and so they do not naturally
act as a team.
• The owner may try to prevent communication of multiple parties with the Construction
Contractor, preferring instead to have only one point of contact. The owner may even
totally prevent engineering/design from communicating with Construction. While this
prevents the construction contractor from getting mixed messages, it also drastically
limits open communication of problems and prevents teamwork.
• Lack of true alignment between teams on project execution, even though nominal
alignment meetings have been held.
• Different goals between Construction, CSU, and Operations lead to different priorities.
• Operations-CSU team building is just as important as Construction-CSU team building.
• Individuals may get along well enough, but cannot succeed working together if the
organizational structure and/or contractual terms of the project do not set them up for
success.
• Non-productive and unhealthy competition between teams from separate departments
or companies.

132
 Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

Hot Spot #20 # Contributors: 10

Qualitative Impacts/Threats to Success

• If the construction team and commissioning team do not work together for project
success, they will end up undermining each other and slowing the project down.
Project costs will increase and schedules will stretch out accordingly.
• Lack of communication can cause safety issues and lead to poor project performance.
• Lack of team building leads to lack of communication, which results in unpleasant
surprises with cost and delays.

Prevention/Mitigation Strategies
• Conduct Construction-CSU team building, multiple times as required to support project
complexity, duration, and personnel changes.
• Ensure that the construction manager and commissioning manager have a good
working relationship. They should mutually respect one another.
• Ensure that all parties on the project feel shared responsibility for the ultimate success
of the project.
• Develop an open culture where project team members of any level are able to identify
problems and bring them to the attention of the group without fear of being looked
down upon.
• Team building activities are more effective early in the project, however can still be
conducted later in the project and should be continued periodically through to the end
of the project.
• Personnel selection is very important. Cooperative, congenial, open attitudes are
important along with experience and technical competence. One person in a key role
who does not communicate well with others will hurt the team and the project.
• Project contracts and organizational structures should promote open communication
of the project teams, especially among Construction and CSU. The two parties should
have a balance of influence, with neither reporting to the other. Good contracts and
organizational structures will set up the parties for successful Commissioning and
Startup.

RACI Designations

Responsible: Commissioning and Startup Management; Construction Management;

Business Unit Management

Accountable: Project Management

Consulted: Engineering Management; Plant Operations Management

Informed: Project Leadership Team

133
Appendix C: Hot Spot Characterizations

CSU Critical Success Factors

Hot Spot #20
(from IR312-2, Volume I)

CSU Critical
Indicators of CSF Achievement
Success Factor

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has been reviewed/

4. Alignment approved by all stakeholders, and signatures are affixed.
among Owner PM,
4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved.
Operations, CSU,
Engineering, and 4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering design
Construction reviews, engineered equipment purchases, construction
sequencing, and schedules.

5.1 A CSU manager was assigned at the start of front end engineering
and remained with the project through to initial operations.
5. CSU Leadership
Continuity
5.2 The qualifications and the planned tenure of the CSU manager
were well-defined by early front end engineering.

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a minimum CSU

objectives, strategies, schedule, and roles and responsibilities) was
developed and reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the overall project
Execution Plan execution plan and had evident linkages to other project functions
(e.g., engineering, construction, operations, maintenance, quality,
and HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the detailed CSU
execution plan.

12.1 Project operational objectives were well documented and well

understood among CSU team members.
12. CSU Team
12.2 CSU team members understood the links between their actions
Capability
and the technical metrics for project success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with management metrics.

134
 Appendix D
CSU Critical Success Factors and
Associated Indicators of Achievement (from CII 2015)

Critical Top 30
CSF Indicators of Achievement
Success Factor Indicator

1.1 CSU manager is on the project organizational chart

at the start of front end engineering. 
1.2 Prior to the start of front end engineering, approved
1. CSU Value CSU budget and schedule are in hand for CSU
Recognition planning work.

1.3 Project leadership is very familiar with the venture

value that would be lost from a one-day delay in
startup of operations.

2.1 Project team has identified all tie-ins and individual

shut-downs by 30-percent detailed design
complete; and these have been integrated into the 
construction-CSU integrated schedule.

2. Critical 2.2 All construction-CSU physical access constraints

Interfaces on due to brownfield conditions have been identified by
Brownfield 30-percent detailed design complete.
Projects 2.3 System boundaries and isolations are developed
with full understanding of brownfield operations/
controls conditions.

2.4 All project team members understand site permitting

requirements.

3.1 By the end of front end engineering, the CSU budget

3. Adequate
has been derived from knowledge of CSU strategy
Funding for
and scope of work, and if needed CSU resources, 
CSU
not simply a percentage of TIC.

4.1 The CSU philosophy/strategy/execution plan has

been reviewed/approved by all stakeholders, and 
signatures are affixed.
4. Alignment
among Owner 4.2 Repeated confirmation of alignment is achieved. 
PM, Operations,
4.3 Critical CSU input has been acquired for engineering
CSU,
Engineering,
design reviews, engineered equipment purchases, 
construction sequencing, and schedules..
and
Construction 4.4 Several CSU joint meetings were held in which all
stakeholders were present. These were initiated
early and were repeated throughout the Planning,
Design, and Construction phases.

135
Appendix D: CSU Critical Success Factors and Associated Indicators of Achievement

Critical Top 30
CSF Indicators of Achievement
Success Factor Indicator

5.1 A CSU manager was assigned at the start of front

end engineering and remained with the project 
5. CSU through to initial operations.
Leadership
Continuity 5.2 The qualifications and the planned tenure of the
CSU manager were well-defined by early front end 
engineering.

6.1 System acceptance criteria were incorporated into

6. System the contract with the execution contractor. 
Milestone
Acceptance 6.2 System/subsystem acceptance criteria were well
Criteria and documented prior to bid document submission, and
Deliverables key parties were aligned on the criteria by the end of
front end engineering.

7.1 Formal CSU design review has occurred by the end

of front end engineering. 
7.2 By the end of front end engineering, system (and
module) boundaries are identified on P&IDs and
7. CSU System electrical one-line diagrams.
Engineering
during FEED 7.3 CSU manager was accountable for leading the
team through the systemization process, involving
operations, maintenance, and CSU resources.

7.4 Preliminary CSU sequence was defined by end of

front end engineering.

8.1 A methodical approach was used to develop the

project’s CSU sequence (including all system,
subsystems and related dependencies), with formal 
8. Recognition recognition of all critical sequences and was finalized
of CSU by end of detailed design.
Sequence 8.2 The formulation of CSU sequence was completed
Drivers by the end of detailed design and took into
consideration timely completion of life-safety and 
process safety systems, control systems, utility
systems, and process systems, among others.

136
 Appendix D: CSU Critical Success Factors and Associated Indicators of Achievement

Critical Top 30
CSF Indicators of Achievement
Success Factor Indicator

9.1 A CSU-specific execution plan (including at a

minimum CSU objectives, strategies, schedule,
and roles and responsibilities) was developed and 
reviewed/approved by CSU stakeholders by end of
detailed design.

9. Detailed CSU 9.2 The CSU execution plan was integrated into the
Execution Plan overall project execution plan and had evident
linkages to other project functions (e.g., engineering, 
construction, operations, maintenance, quality, and
HSE)

9.3 Operations provided input into the preparation of the

detailed CSU execution plan. 
10.1 Finalization of CSU sequence, depicting all systems,
subsystems, and associated dependencies. 
10.2 Commissioning test procedures were completed by
the end of detailed design. 
10. System-
focus in 10.3 Construction and pre-commissioning check-sheets
Detailed Design were finalized by the end of detailed design.

10.4 Identification and finalization of CSU system and

subsystem boundaries on P&IDs, one-lines, and
controls architecture.

11.1 A complete set of construction/QC and

commissioning check-sheets has been defined,
reviewed, and approved by key project functions
(e.g., construction, commissioning, operations, and 
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system
prior to construction.
11. Definition
of CSU 11.2 A complete set of construction/QC and
Check-sheets, commissioning test procedures has been defined,
Procedures, reviewed, and approved by key project functions
and Tools (construction, commissioning, operations, and 
quality) and loaded into a CSU management system
prior to construction and/or module fabrication.

11.3 If an asset management solution was used, then an

equipment diagnostic alerts utilization plan was in
place prior to construction.

137
Appendix D: CSU Critical Success Factors and Associated Indicators of Achievement

Critical Top 30
CSF Indicators of Achievement
Success Factor Indicator

12.1 Project operational objectives were well

documented and well understood among CSU team 
members.

12. CSU Team 12.2 CSU team members understood the links between
Capability their actions and the technical metrics for project 
success.

12.3 CSU progress was regularly assessed with

management metrics. 
13. Integrated 13.1 Project schedule included system logic
Construction/ interdependencies and turnover milestones prior to 
CSU Schedule 30-percent construction complete.

14.1 A master set of asset drawings was readily available

and document control procedures were effective, 
from construction through final facility turnover.

14. Accurate 14.2 An asset information plan has been defined,

As-built reviewed, and approved by the end of detailed 
Information design.

14.3 A detailed as-built plan has been defined, reviewed,

and approved by the end of detailed design, and 
was referenced within the project execution plan.

15.1 Possession of a construction and commissioning

integrated schedule by the 30-percent construction 
complete milestone.
15. Transition to
Systems-based 15.2 Tracking of system completion with the use of
Management check-sheets during construction. 
15.3 Formalized system-level walk-down and punch list
management, led by CSU team. 
16.1 Joint meetings, involving both CM and CSU
managers, were conducted starting around 
50-percent construction complete.
16.
Collaborative 16.2 Joint CSU system walk-downs were conducted,
Approach to involving both CM CSU managers.
Construction-
CSU Turnover 16.3 Short-term scheduling priorities (at both
construction area and system/subsystem levels)
were established with input from both CM and CSU
managers.

138
 References
1. Akashi, Y., Castro, N., Novakovic, V., Viaud, B., Jandon, M. The IEA/ECBCS/Annex
40 Glossary on Commissioning.
2. American Petroleum Institute. (2013). Facilities Systems Completion Planning and
Execution. API Recommended Practice 1FSC, 1st Ed.
3. Bagsarian, T. (2001). “Avoiding startup stumbles.” Iron Age New Steel, 17(2), 16-19.
4. Construction Industry Institute (1998). Planning for Startup, Implementation Resource
121-2. Austin, TX.
5. Construction Industry Institute (2010). CII Value of Best Practices Report.
Benchmarking and Metrics 2010-4. Austin, TX.
6. Construction Industry Institute (2015). Achieving Success in the Commissioning
and Startup of Capital Projects, Volume I: Best Practices for Commissioning and
Startup. Implementation Resource 312-2, Austin, TX.
7. Construction Industry Institute (2015). Achieving Success in the Commissioning and
Startup of Capital Projects, Volume II: Mini-Case Studies. Implementation Resource
312-2, Austin, TX.
8. Construction Industry Institute (2016). Identification and Implementation of Critical
Success Factors in Commissioning and Startup of Capital Projects. Research Report
312-11, Austin, TX.
9. Deloitte & Touche (2012). Effective Operational Readiness of Large Capital Projects:
Avoiding value leakage in the transition from project execution into operations,
Johannesburg, RSA.
10. Gonzalez, M. (2017). “ISPE Glossary.” International Society for Pharmaceutical
Engineering. <http://www.ispe.org/glossary> (April 25, 2017).
11. Haughey, D. “RACI Matrix.” Projectsmart. <www.projectsmart.co.uk> (Apr. 27, 2017).
12. Horsley, D. (1998). Process Plant Commissioning. Institution of Chemical Engineers,
Bookcraft Ltd., Bath, UK.
13. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2001). GAMP® 4: Good
Automated Manufacturing Practice Guide for Validation of Automated Systems, as
referenced in ISPE 2017 (Reference 10).
14. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2001). ISPE Baseline® Guide,
Vol. 4: Water and Steam Systems, 2nd Ed, as referenced in ISPE 2017.
15. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2001). ISPE Baseline® Guide,
Vol. 5: Commissioning and Qualification, as referenced in ISPE 2017.
16. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2004). ISPE Baseline® Guide,
Vol. 6: Biopharmaceutical Manufacturing Facilities, as referenced in ISPE 2017.

139
References

17. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2005). GAMP® Good Practice
Guide: IT Infrastructure Control and Compliance, as referenced in ISPE 2017.
18. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2007). ISPE Baseline® Guide,
Vol. 1: Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients, 2nd Ed, as referenced in ISPE 2017.
19. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2007). ISPE Good Practice
Guide: Commissioning and Qualification of Pharmaceutical Water and Steam
Systems, as referenced in ISPE 2017.
20. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2008). GAMP® 5: A Risk-
Based Approach to Compliant GxP Computerized Systems, as referenced in
ISPE 2017.
21. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2009). ISPE Good Practice
Guide: Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), as referenced in ISPE 2017.
22. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2011). ISPE Good Practice
Guide: Project Management for the Pharmaceutical Industry, as referenced in ISPE
2017.
23. International Society for Pharmaceutical Engineering (2012). GAMP® Good Practice
Guide: A Risk-Based Approach to Testing of GxP Systems, 2nd Ed, as referenced
in ISPE 2017.
24. Lamport, W., Rosenberg, D. (2005). “Hook-up and Commissioning: The Last Step
to a Successful Project.” Upstream Industry Benchmarking Conference.
25. Merrow, E. (2011). Industrial Megaprojects: Concepts, Strategies, and Practices for
Success, 1st Ed., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
26. Tribe, M., Johnson, R. (2008). “Effective Capital Project Commissioning.” Pulp and
Paper Industry Technical Conference, 2008. PPIC 2008. Conference Record of
2008 54th Annual. Seattle, WA.
27. U.S. Department of Energy (2006). “Glossary of Environment, Safety and Health
Terms.”
28. U.S. Food & Drug Administration (2014). “FDA Glossary of Computerized System
and Software Development Technology.” <https://www.fda.gov/iceci/inspections/
inspectionguides/ucm074875.htm> (April 25, 2017).

140
Notes

141
Research Team 333: Transition Management between Construction
Completion, Pre-Commissioning, Commissioning, and Startup
Mark Bergman, Zurich
Ed Brown, Zachry Group
* Beth Buerger, Bentley Systems Inc.
Alejandro Castaño, Construtora Norberto Odebrecht S.A.
Ginger Craig, Southern Company
Juan Cruz, SBM Offshore
Nathan Dykstra, ArcelorMittal
Mary Kay Garcia, Eli Lilly and Company, Chair
Glenn Griffith, Occidental Petroleum Corporation
* Matt Lamey, Anadarko Petroleum Corporation
* Brant Mock, The University of Texas at Austin
Pat Noonan, Haskell
Brian Nordmann, Emerson
* Jim O’Connor, The University of Texas at Austin, Principal Investigator
* Jenny Parish, EnLink Midstream
* Mauricio Rodriguez, Smithsonian Institution
Joel Tremblay, Chevron
Amin Vahdat, WorleyParsons, Vice Chair
Skip Vaughn, Architect of the Capitol
Peter Walker, Coreworx Inc.

Past member
Chris Tisdel, Autodesk, Inc.

* Principal authors

Editor: Michael E. Burns

 Construction Industry Institute
The University of Texas at Austin
3925 W. Braker Lane (R4500)
Austin, Texas 78759-5316