Ask Aaron Crews

Aaron's Response:

Fundamentally, I think this is a two-way street. The way that simulation has changed the way I approach system modernization projects has shifted almost hand-in-hand with the way that modernization projects themselves have shifted.

For years, the only place dynamic simulation was really used was at the very end of the project, and, even then, in the most basic way possible. By providing simple I/O tiebacks, project teams could be sure that the basic scaling, control direction, and alarms were correct, and that the system graphics were configured properly and tied into the right points. With this very limited utility (which would be thrown away at the end of the project), the incentives were to spend as little time and effort as possible on the simulation.

Now that the utility of simulation throughout the project and operational lifecycle are more broadly understood, dynamic simulation becomes a living, growing risk mitigator/trainer/decision-maker. If they’re no longer throwing it away, then process manufacturers feel much more positive about investing in dynamic simulation. And with a heavier investment in dynamic simulation, they then look for more opportunities for it to deliver value.

Unfortunately, old habits die hard. Even though the project mindset and operational direction has somewhat evolved, the purchasing and procurement habits of the past have still lingered in many cases. If the project scope doesn’t explicitly require dynamic simulation, then automation vendors are likely to leave it out of the scope or to minimize its use. The project bidding process can be cutthroat, and vendors will look for opportunities to get their prices lower and win the project. It is critical that users who are considering modernizing their plants also consider the long-term benefits and the project risk reduction associated with dynamic simulation, and that they grow in the ways they put together bid packages and procurement-based vendor assessments.

Thankfully, the highest-performing organizations have already started to evolve in this way. They have evaluated vendors and negotiated master supply agreement (MSA) pricing ahead of time to clear the air of this type of “race to the bottom” approach. With pricing already secured, vendors and manufacturers can work hand in hand to do the right thing long-term for the facility – reducing risks in the right spots but not over-investing/”gold plating” a given project. This starts early in the project during the FEL-2/Select phase (even earlier than the FEED).

Then the use of simulation can be better specified in the FEED itself, including those particular areas where it provides the most near-term value (perhaps integration testing, operator training, etc). The simulation can appropriately grow over time. Perhaps most critically, knowing that this dynamic simulation capability is available which then frees up the engineering team to move away from that “replacement in kind” mindset that I mentioned and instead set their sites on legitimate control improvements that deliver real ROI (and now might be possible without added risk).