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

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

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

Those who work in high hazard industries are familiar with the OSHA Process Safety Management (PSM) requirements for routine Process Hazard Analyses (PHA) for their processes. Hazard and Operability (HAZOP) and Layer of Protection Analysis (LOPA) are recognized methods for PHA. LOPA is widely used as a semi-quantitative method to identify, assess, and improve the most effective safeguards for higher consequence scenarios identified in a qualitative HAZOP study. One of the important products of a LOPA is a list of Independent Protection Layers (IPL) . When correctly identified, IPLs are devices, systems, and actions that are capable of preventing a hazard scenario from proceeding to the undesired consequence. In layman’s terms, they are the “best” and most effective of the safeguards that were identified in the HAZOP for specific scenarios and initiating events. The core attributes for safeguards to qualify as IPLs are well-known and have criteria including: Independent of the initiating event and of other protection layers Specific to the hazard Functional, dependable, and reliable (including routine testing) Auditable Secure Subject to management of change There are many reputable sources for training for the HAZOP and LOPA methods. Many organizations also have good internal guidance on this subject. But what happens when inadequate guidance, training, or discipline for the correct use of LOPA and identification of IPLs is present? You might be surprised at how often safeguards not meeting the core attributes are specified as IPLs in industry. It’s easy to find advice detailing the complexities of proper IPL selection and management, but without a facilitator well-versed in the basics of IPL selection, LOPA teams can get off on the wrong foot. The Challenges Many companies and LOPA practitioners employ excellent practices to identify and validate IPLs during LOPA. However, it is surprisingly common for significant IPL selection errors to be encountered during externally facilitated revalidation PHAs, audits and other types of process safety reviews. IPL concerns of the following types are entirely possible to occur in LOPA studies if initial selection or follow-up IPL validation is not as it should be: Use of two or more relief devices, all taken with two or more IPL credits. Relief devices are often a highly effective safeguard. However, they are subject to concerns that should limit the credit taken at times, including use in services where "pluggage" or other common cause failures are credible, engineering assumptions on sizing are not as the PHA team assumed, poor-quality or no routine inspections are performed, and other issues. Use of instrumentation whose failsafe failure modes are opposite of that assumed by the PHA team, which may result in an unrecognized IPL failure to the dangerous mode. Selection of one facet of an IPL such as a BPCS alarm, without recognition that other facets are also needed for a complete IPL, such as alarm prioritization and management, training in the specific alarm response, an operating procedure, and proper field instrument functional testing. Selection of a BPCS alarm and Operator response as an IPL, without confirming that sufficient time is present before hazard development to evaluate and respond effectively to the alarm. Selection of IPLs with insufficient independence from the initiating cause of a hazardous scenario, or insufficient independence from another IPL for the same scenario. A classic example of this is selection of an instrument to alarm or interlock of a process condition that could be initiated by a failure of that same instrument. Crediting design pressure and temperature ratings; both are equipment attributes that should normally be taken into account in identifying the scenario consequences, not credited as an IPL. Building Confidence Improperly selected and validated IPLs can result in high hazard scenarios that have far less risk reduction in place than you think you have. Implementing a systematic process to properly vet your IPL candidates for the core attributes is strongly recommended. Engaging experienced PHA/LOPA facilitators and having the right team during the meeting is the first step in proper IPL selection. Further validation of IPLs to confirm they meet the defined criteria can be time consuming but also goes a long way toward increasing your confidence in your most important safeguards for higher consequence scenarios in highly hazardous chemical processes.

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

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

by Sarah Manelick ‘Evergreen’ and ‘lifecycle’ have become two common buzz words in our industry. They are thrown around in a variety of topics, processes, and philosophies as descriptions of how management plans should be set up. But what does it really mean to have an evergreen process? How does one keep a lifecycle alive? This is especially relevant when it comes to topics such as alarm management, where it is commonly touted that once a plant rationalizes their entire system, they have completed alarm management. This paper will deconstruct the alarm management lifecycle and pinpoint key aspects that can be integrated into process safety management systems and work processes that already exist. Tying the alarm management lifecycle to what is already being done as part of process safety and good engineering practice will help to ensure it remains ‘evergreen’ and delivers the intended benefits. Unlock this download by completing the form: aeSolutions offers services and systems to bring the client’s alarm management practices into compliance with the current ISA 18.2 standard s. Our services are designed to support our clients’ desires to encourage a culture of sustainable alarm management as an important component to their overall process safety strategy. Learn more here.

Company to Continue to Focus on Client Success and Employee Development and Recruitment in 2024 Greenville, SC – February 28, 2024 – aeSolutions , a consulting, engineering, and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services,  today announces company milestones achieved and overall performance for 2023. The company’s achievements in the past year include impressive growth and a continued focus on employee recruitment and development.   “ In 2023, aeSolutions continued to demonstrate extraordinary resilience and to focus on firing on all cylinders in order to continually improve how we serve our partners and clients, ” said Ken O’Malley, president of aeSolutions. “ We have been working to get the right leadership in place, leadership that embraces our core values and our company’s vision as the path for sustainable growth and success. We have it all in place now: the leadership, the culture, and the systems. Our clients are counting on us to help guide them into an uncertain future, and we are ready. ‘Let’s Go!’ is our call for 2024. ”   Company Growth In a year when many process manufacturing companies were struggling with lower demand in the housing and automotive industries, aeSolutions was able to grow its business by 10%. Specifically, the company’s safety system s  ,  fired equipment system s , and its alarm management services  all experienced impressive growth rates in 2023. aeSolutions expects these businesses to continue to demonstrate strong momentum in 2024.   New Markets Minerals processing, especially for the electric vehicle (EV) battery industry, and hydrogen manufacturing continue to be exciting growth areas for the company.   Key Personnel Appointments David Ivester, senior vice president of Sales and Marketing: Ivester’s 30-plus years of experience prior to joining aeSolutions comprised a variety of leadership positions in sales and marketing in the process automation space. As part of its ongoing commitment to employee recruitment and development, in the second quarter of 2024, the company will be announcing additional exciting changes that will bring a balanced focus on client success and the development of our people. Key Product/Deliverable Highlights aeSolutions’ newest product, aeRemoteConnect (aeRC™) , allows engineers to securely and remotely connect to on-site automation systems, reducing response times when troubleshooting or when modifications are urgently needed. The connection can be used by credentialed aeSolutions and client personnel. A secure, end-to-end encrypted tunnel is established via cellular or existing on-site network and key-switch authorization from on-site staff.   aeRC™ provides robust security controls that meet the high security bar set by today’s IT professionals:   • Certificate-based VPN tunnel • Multi-Factor Authentication • Role-based access control • Account auditing • System logging • SOC 2 compliant data center.   With aeRC™, aeSolutions provides a complete solution with all the necessary equipment, licenses, and services. Based on Siemens' SINEMA Remote Connect software and proven industrial networking equipment, this solution is ready for use with any control system platform.   Company Culture/Initiatives In 2023, aeSolutions rolled out its Employee Potential Model, a framework designed to channel and guide employee growth and development. As the company’s plans for 2024 include continued investment in hiring staff, the Employee Potential Model will help new team members quickly learn the skills necessary to help clients be successful, while simultaneously providing real career-enhancing development opportunities. aeSolutions is hiring across all departments, and encourages candidates with automation , process safety, or safety systems experience who are passionate about pursuing their full potential to contact the company’s director of Human Resources, Ben Krisher.   Additionally, the company established a new office in Houston’s Energy Corridor. The relocation is part of the company’s aggressive  strategic growth plans and will serve as a hub for its operations in the Gulf Coast region.   The new office will provide localized client support and offers an ideal location for aeSolutions to engage with a wide range of markets, including traditional and alternative energy sectors, agribusiness, metals, chemicals, and petrochemicals. Plans for 2024 aeSolutions strives to improve industry by guiding clients to increasingly resilient operations and safer communities and thrive delivering products and services to critical applications that others avoid by remaining authentic to its core values. Throughout 2024, aeSolutions will continue to focus on the development of its workforce and the realization of employee potential through the achievement of client success.   About aeSolutions In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a consulting, engineering and systems integration company that provides industrial process safety and automation products and services. They specialize in helping industrial clients achieve their risk management and operational excellence goals through expertise in process safety, combustion control and safeguarding, safety instrumented systems, control system design and integration, alarm management, and related operations and integrity management systems. For more information, visit www.aesolutions.com .   Media Contact RedIron Public Relations for aeSolutions Kari@redironpr.com

December 31st, 2024 — At aeSolutions, our commitment to corporate responsibility goes beyond business as usual. As outlined in our Corporate Responsibility policy , we strive to support our team members, their families, our clients, and the communities where we live and work. In 2024, we amplified this commitment through an enhanced charitable giving initiative, focusing on projects that deliver measurable and sustainable improvements in the areas we serve. Investing in Communities with Purpose aeSolutions is proud to direct charitable contributions to four key areas: Hunger Relief, Health and Human Services, Education, and Military Support. By concentrating our efforts in these vital sectors, we aim to create meaningful and lasting change where it matters most and strive to connect with causes that resonate deeply within our communities. Overcoming Challenges, Driving Results This year, our geographically distributed workforce created a real challenge to making this program strategic and inclusive, but the ingenuity and passion of our employees turned that challenge into an opportunity. We leveraged employee input to shape our giving strategy throughout the year, and our workforce's diverse perspectives allowed us to identify and support causes that reflect the values of our team and the needs of our communities. As Ken O’Malley, CEO, expressed, “ I am so proud of our employees whose compassion brought to life a giving strategy that is meaningful to them .” Contributions That Count Here are just a few highlights of the organizations and initiatives we proudly supported this year: ·         Matching Donation Campaign: We matched employee donations to the American Cancer Society, doubling the impact of our team's generosity in the fight against cancer. ·         Educational Advancement: Contributions to the Society for Women Engineers and sponsorship of the Alaska Science Fair underscore our commitment to fostering STEM education and empowering future leaders. ·         Hunger Relief and Health Services: We continued our longstanding support for the United Way Hands-On-Greenville (HOG) Day, and the Greenville, SC Meals-on-Wheels program, ensuring vital resources reach those in need. In addition to monetary support, several team members in Greenville volunteer their time on a weekly basis to deliver hot meals for community members. ·         Broad Reach: In addition to these key efforts, we supported numerous health and human services organizations across the country, as recommended by our employees, strengthening the safety net for vulnerable populations. Wyatt Smith heading out to deliver Meals on Wheels Looking Ahead Our charitable giving initiative reflects the heart of our company culture — a shared dedication to making a difference. As Joel Read, CFO, noted: “ Our team members exceeded expectations with their support and enthusiasm for our 2024 charitable giving program, and it has been hugely rewarding to have such a positive impact driven by our core values .” By investing in community projects that yield measurable outcomes, we are not just giving back; we are building a foundation for sustainable progress. Together, with our team members, clients, and community partners, we look forward to continuing this important work in the years to come. Christi and Steve Morrison participating in Hands-On Greenville

December 2024 - Learn about six hidden pitfalls that undermine workplace safety culture and learn actionable strategies to foster a more resilient and safety-conscious environment. This article explores the following topics and more: Click here to read the full article on IEN.com Applicability of Process Safety Management (PSM) and Risk Management Program (RMP) Regulations : Many facilities neglect to assess whether these regulations apply to their operations, leading to unstructured safety processes. Mechanical Integrity : While fixed equipment like vessels and piping are usually well-managed, issues frequently arise with rotating equipment and control systems due to inadequate monitoring and maintenance. Management of Change (MOC) : Organizations often fail to implement robust MOC procedures, resulting in unassessed risks when changes occur in processes or equipment. Operating Procedures : Outdated or poorly documented operating procedures can lead to unsafe practices and increased risk of incidents. Training and Competency : Insufficient training programs contribute to a workforce that is ill-prepared to handle safety challenges effectively. Incident Investigation : A lack of thorough incident investigations prevents organizations from learning from past mistakes and implementing corrective actions. by Judith Lesslie, CFSE, CSP, CCPSC , Senior Principal Specialist at aeSolutions . Read the full article here: Safety Culture: Examining Common Shortcomings - IEN.com

December 2024 - Discover how unplanned shutdowns can unlock hidden opportunities to enhance safety testing, optimize maintenance schedules, and improve operational reliability. This article explores the following topics: Click here to read the full article on OHSonline.com Using unplanned shutdowns as partial proof tests for safety systems Identifying which safety components can be effectively tested during shutdowns Understanding the limitations and risks of relying solely on shutdown events for validation Integrating unplanned shutdown insights into regular safety testing protocols Balancing operational safety with extended maintenance intervals by Chris Powell, PE, CFSE , SIS Group Manager at aeSolutions . Read the full article here: Unplanned Shutdowns as Proof Test Credits: What to Know and Steps to Take - OHSonline.com

Presented by Greg Hardin - Senior Principal Specialist, aeSolutions Why Do Control Systems Go Wrong? The British HSE publication “Out of control - Why control systems go wrong and how to prevent failure” (HSE238) reports the primary cause by phase (specification, design and implementation, installation and commissioning, operation and maintenance, changes after commissioning) of failures of 34 safety systems in different industries. This document is frequently referred to in functional safety activities in the process industries. This presentation will consider just how applicable are the quantitative results presented in HSE238 to the process industries. Keywords: automation, systems integration, upgrade, process safety, process control network, pcn, safety instrumented systems, SIS, systematic failure Auto Generated Transcript: Is that really why control systems go wrong? OK. Out of control, why control systems go wrong and how to prevent failure? That's a publication of the United Kingdom's Health and Safety executive. It is, you know, very well down in the functional safety. Business and I have used this chart. In multiple presentations over the years and what it represents is the percent of particular phase of the lifecycle where things went wrong that resulted in eventually in a serious incident. 6% installation and commissioning 20% modifications after commissioning. 15% operation and maintenance. 15% design and implementation and this is the biggie. That was a surprise to a lot of people when it was published. That the idea that where we were going wrong with. Process safety in related to instrumented protective functions was in specification. So if you take that pie chart, you can do the same thing against. Their safety lifecycle. Specification design and implementation. And then you can break it down a little bit more to show the areas that we're interested in. You know hazard and risk analysis, then sift selection safety instrumented function and safety integrity level determination. Thus Isfel is what we. Used to and still do called the calls. Call the group that I am in. And then device selection safety, integrity, integrity level calculation again. That's assist file function. And then not to cut off half the life cycle. Installation and commissioning. Operation and maintenance modification. I think if you had taken a survey of people before the HSE publication came out, this is where people would have said most of the. Incidents were caused and I'll have a little bit more about that to say about that later in the talk. What really prompted me to want to do the some of the research that led to this talk was what is known as the streetlight of effect. You may be familiar with this little story of someone on their hands and knees. Obviously looking for something along comes a police officer. Ask the person what are they doing and they say they're looking for the car keys that they drop well. The officer wants to help, so he asks where were you standing exactly when you dropped them? And the person replies back up the street. Then why are you looking here? Because the light is better. Are we looking at just at the specification to the exclude, not to the exclusion, but, More giving it more effort than we should, because that's, you know, that's our business. That's what's right, and at least you know my part of the business. That's right, what's right in front of me on my desk or on my computer screen? Is the the sisvel portions of the safety lifecycle that I did just identified? So that's the street light effect? When I was putting this talk together, I said, well, I'm familiar with the Identification of the different incidents in the report. Where they identified that specification is where they went wrong. But I said, well, I probably ought to go ahead and really read the report. And if I read the report. The report is not as exclusive. To the analysis of the various phases as. I was assuming they do say that. Poor hazard analysis of the equipment under control. Inadequate assessment. Systematic approach not used. These are all portions of the specification phase. That when you lump everything together as specification, that's where I started to get worried. If we were. If we were looking where the light was better. So this is the table from that report and. Where they picked up 44 of the incidents that they reviewed were 44% were due to inadequate specification and they said of those twelve were inadequate functional requirements. Specification in and 32 were, 32% were. Inadequate safety integrity requirements specification. Well, if you look at all of the incidents in the report, only one third of the total number of incidents. Which was 15 of the incidents in this case total number only one third of those, or approximately 5 are related to incidents in the chemical or refinery industries. So do the causes of incidents in the process industries follow the distribution given in out of control? That was my promise in starting this. There are lots of Compilations of incidents in the process industries. And there's I will give a list of references at the end of this presentation. But. The granularity of the causes in these compilations is somewhat limited, in other words. Just because a significant incident happened very few cases do the reports, particularly the summary reports that you can find on multiple incidents. Rarely do they give you the detail that you would new need to say. Was this specification related or not? Most of the major incidents, involve a sequence of events they have multiple causes related to organizations and other things and. You know they generate these large reports and again you may find something that says, well, specification of this control or safety function was inadequate. That's almost never the entire story. So I did go through and this is, you know, several of the reference lists, and I did look at 50 incidents in a particular period of time out of this out of loss prevention and the process industries, which is a commonly cited book and I was only able to identify five that were in the least bit instrument related. Based on the description that was given and again. You know, can you say from this was these were these specification related? Possibly there just not enough detail to to tell, so my initial premise that I could. Review the incidents and Compare the results that I could get to the same distribution of incidence of causes in the HSE publication. Turned out to not be very practical, but what can we talk about? Well, here are some of the better known major incidents. I think everybody's probably heard most about most of these, of course, Pasadena in 1989 was the explosion at the Phillips 66 facility here in the Houston area that resulted in the death of Mary Kay O'Connor and eventually the founding of the Mary Kay O'Connor Process Safety Center. The one incident of all of these where you could say that Specifications sure sounds like specification was a good portion of the problem. Was bunch field, but essentially it was a tank overflowed in a fuel depot outside of London and generated and explode a vapor cloud that eventually exploded. And reading the reports on the incident, if you look at it, it's like boy. If this was the consequence Well, did they not recognize the potential consequences of overfilling a tank? Would it have not made sense to have multiple, independent, diverse technology level instruments and communication to the remote Control Center? You know, so I would have to say of the major incidents. That most people are familiar with Bunch Field becomes the closest to being specification related. So where can things go wrong in specifications? Well, you know. Obviously in the hazards assessment. If you don't identify a hazard if you don't identify an initiating event, if you don't accurately. Predict the potential consequences if you give too much credit for your existing safeguards. Well then you regarding ill then you have missed something that will not be addressed in the rest of your project. Risk assessment. People tend to overestimate or underestimate initiating event frequency. We happen to be of all involved in a a project right now. I did some checking on just the other day where we're actually doing some failure mode and effect analysis. Trying to apply some Bayesian statistics to help a client identify the closer. Initiating event frequency to the true value than what you can get just out of looking at the reference books. Obviously you can over under May underestimate the consequence, severity, conditional modifiers and enabling conditions of inappropriately applied to reduce the potential frequency. I've borrowed this chart from the presentation I did a while back on functional safety assessments and this is just. You know, I put this together, it's it's not really a serious analysis. But one thing we run and run into frequently when people ask us to help them do. Safety, integrity level, determination of safety functions related to fired equipment is that they start out assuming that if the slightest bit of uncombusted fuel makes its way into the fire box, then you have a violent explosion that results in a fatality. And if you look at it, it's. Yeah, that makes an awful lot of assumptions, so this just happens to be a specific instance that I've seen several times and people come up with outrageous what seems unnecessarily high. Safety, integrity level requirements beyond that required by the standards. To address this, when if they took a, a more hardheaded look at it, it would not necessarily occur with the frequency or the consequence that they assume. In the safety requirements specification. Systematic errors or your field device is going to be certified to E. C, Six, 1508 or based on prior use. The standard is more forgiving of you if you base them on prior use. However, this is also some place where you can go wrong or go astray, I should say. Because the latest version of ANSI ISA 615 eleven allows you to have a safety integrity level, two function with zero hardware fault tolerance. In other words, no redundancy. Well, that is based on the fact that the failure rates you're using to calculate the safety integrity level are based on prior use, but the standard doesn't stay that very clearly an you know. That's an unfortunate. Weakness I think in the standard, but it's a place where you have to be careful. It makes a difference in how you evaluate hardware, fault tolerance, architectural constraints. Whether you're basing your failure rates. Are they certified devices or are they based on prior use? Is your failure rate data reasonable? Boy, that's something that we deal with very frequently. Clients will come to us sometimes with a manufacturer certificate that has a. Dangerous undetected failure rate for a device that's one or two orders of magnitude lower than what we're used to seeing even for certified devices. And sometimes it can be difficult to get the client to recognize the risk that they're taking in the past. Sometimes I have performed the calculation with their data and then with more reasonable data and showed them the difference. And like I say, you're trying to identify the risk. That the client is assuming by using this potentially unreasonable failure rate that the device can't really maintain in the field. Test intervals. Are people really thought through? You know, that's one of the knobs that they want us to change. Is test intervals? Well, yeah, I can't see you know. Well, let's make this the test interval shorter and we'll get the safety integrity level down. Well yeah, that's true. Or mean up increases. Excuse me, but is that really? You know, if you've got a five year turn around frequency and that's the only time that you can test some of your safety functions well. D. I'll just changing the number. Doesn't really do you anything if you can't actually operate that way. Test coverage is. That's another place where people want to say oh, our test coverage. We're night. We cover 99% of the potential failures. Well, if you look at the possible, hopefully the manufacturers safety manual, that's possibly not. Reasonable, we had a good presentation to spend some time ago about vendor talking about the work that has been done in the nuclear industry about what it takes to obtain test, you know, proof test coverage for shut off valves, and they're not even to get to the highest. Proof test coverage takes an awful lot of work and an awful lot of resources. Hardware resources. Process safety time. Is it accurate digit? Is it considered in the design to the valves really closed fast enough? All process operating modes consider. Do you consider startup and shutdown? Are there times when one piece of equipment is out of service but not another will tripping this safety function at that time? Create a hazard you hadn't anticipated. So in summary. Are 44% of the incidents in the process industries do just to a specification error of a safety function? Doubtful. Most have complex causes noticed. I'm saying serious incidents. Out of control, focused attention on the specification portion of the safety lifecycle, and that was a good thing because before that I think most people would have said that operation and maintenance and problems with management of change where where the main causes of serious incidents were happening and when reason for that is. Well, you know things don't blow up during the Specification's age. They have to be operating and being maintained before you have a serious incident, and so that's tends to be where the focus is. That doesn't mean that the chain that led to the incident did not start back in the specification phase. So out of control, I still consider it a valuable reference.