Special Edition 2004

Special Edition of digitalPLANT 2004Göller Verlag GmbH, D-76532 Baden-Baden

Aschmattstrasse 8, Germany, Tel. +49-7221-502-200, E-Mail: info@cadplus.de

Engineering Reuse,Modularization andStandardizationin Plant andSystem Engineering

Engineering Reuse,Modularization andStandardizationin Plant andSystem Engineering

II digitalPLANT Business+Engineering

Engineering, Procurement and Con-struction companies (EPC) and sy-

stem integrators have been forced to be-come more and more competitive. Theyhave been able to achieve this through newproducts (plants) showing improved plant eco-nomics.Well known examples are improvedpower plant efficiency or improved processplant yield, with even lower specific invest-ment cost. Furthermore, the modularizationof plants through module standardizationhas also been used to reduce investmentcost. The benefits include a reduction ofthroughput time for engineering as well asof throughput time and cost for produc-tion, procurement and erection of the stan-dardized modules. Firms could achieve diffe-rent levels of success, depending on their fo-cus to particular standards, their businessmodels and the price policies applied totheir customers.

Industry has always tried to use previous-ly built solutions for its engineering activi-ties.Therefore, the process engineer studiesthe requirements of the customer with thegoal to conduct a process simulation basedon his last Process Flow Diagram (PFD) oron the basis of a findable and best suitablemodified PFD.The plant layout designer fol-lows the same procedure for plant layoutdrawings. However, he not only has toconsider whether an object (e.g., a vessel)exists in the PFD, but also whether its para-meters are correct.The selection of the besttemplate for the plant layout is certainly avery difficult task. It is therefore no surprisethat plant layouts are generally started fromscratch.

The data models of existing IT applica-tions, such as simulators, 2D-CAD- or 3D-CAD-programs, are very functionally orient-ed and still developed based on efficientconduct of each specific functional enginee-ring task. Such applications provide no costinformation for the optimization of thetechnical solution. Therefore, use of the a-bove described workflow will be very diffi-cult for implementation of the necessarychanges resulting from customer require-ments, even with the existence of pre-engi-

neered PFDs, P&IDs and 3D-models frommodularization/standardization projects.Additionally, it will be very difficult to rapid-ly recognize whether reuse of a standardi-zed module is feasable and to what extent itneeds to be modified. The same applies toits connected modules. Experience hasshown that a new methodology such as en-gineering reuse becomes necessary to allowstandardized modules to be reused in thehighly complex world of plants/systems. Inthe process engineering plant world, engi-neering reuse means, for example, the reuseof a PFD or its parts. Reusable objects in-clude process units, PFD pages, equipment,control valves or connecting pipes.

Traditional IT applications for PFD crea-tion are mainly used for optimization of thePFD drawing process. However, they sel-domly provide a useful structure for reuse.Therefore, the structural levels in the PFDmust be considered; these are required toallow reuse of the parts of the PFD fromone project to another. One possibility is toselect the level process unit. The decisionmust be made whether a process unit G2

(figure 1 above the feedwater treatment)shall be used for a new project to fulfill therequirements of the customer. Experienceshows that there is often more than one so-lution (process unit variant) available to ful-fill a certain function.The process unit vari-ant is characterized by a certain number ofobjects (equipment, valves or similar) andthe way they are connected with each other.Figures 1 and 2 show two different processunit variants. If we compare the engineeringworkflow for the creation of the processconcept, the traditional approach would bethe search for the necessary PFD pagesfrom one or more already built or designedplants, and to correct them by hand.Withinan environment which favors engineeringreuse, the process variants are stored withadditional descriptions in a Product DataManagement system (PDM) for selection.This is illustrated in figure 1 with “G2—v1:Variant 2 pressures with 2X100%, 2x100%.“The correct solution is found through ans-wering questions such as: For what functio-nal requirements has this variant alreadybeen chosen? What does it look like? What

The reuse of engineeringknowledge for the plant mak-ing and system business hastremendous benefits for theuser.The powerful method ofengineering reuse will bepresented, including the ne-cessary prerequisites. A fewrecommendations for imple-mentation are included at theend of the article.

The Best Way to Engineering Reuse

Figure 3:Piping &InstrumentationDiagramProcess unit“feedwatertreatment“:G2-v1

Figure 1: Process Flow DiagramG2–v1: variant 2 pressures with 2*100%,2*100%. Note for the tagging: the exampleswere tagged according to DIN 6779-13.

Figure 2: Process Flow DiagramG2–v2: variant 3 pressures with 4*33%,2*100%, 4*33%.

G2: Process unit “feedwater treatment“

WHITE PAPER

Pump unit G1 Pump unit G2

digitalPLANT Business+Engineering III

are its key process parameters? How muchdoes this variant cost? The assembly of thechosen process unit variants would then bedone in a 2D-CAD application (PFD tool).

Selection of the correct structural leveland its accompanying description is depen-dent on the chosen business model, the en-gineering discipline (process, instrumenta-tion, electrical 3D design, etc) and the de-sired flexibility. For example, an additional le-vel to the process unit could be introduced.In this case, a process unit would consist ofseveral subfunctions which would haveseveral variants (subfunction variants).

Another aspect is the relationship be-tween the objects of the different engineer-ing disciplines which are largely neglected incurrently used IT applications. If those rela-tionships are not stored in a database, it isimpossible to go from the process concept(represented in the PFD), including its di-mensioning and its ancillaries to main equip-ment (represented in the P&ID, see figure3), to implementation of engineering reusein 3D design.

The following description shows a possi-ble workflow for the creation of the 3Dmodel. Considering the process conceptand the dimensioning of the equipment, it ispossible to do a query based on certain cri-teria in the PDM, in order to visualize the al-ready built main erection units with a diffe-rence of not more than one erection unit.The PDM system allows main erection unitsto be filtered, to list key parameters, e.g., thesize class. It is certainly possible to compareat a higher level of detail, such as to find outwhich equipment unit is missing and whichis superfluous.Visualization of the main er-ection unit is also possible. On the basis ofthis information, it is easier to make a deci-sion on which main erection unit variantshould be started for the delta engineeringon the 3D model.A main erection unit vari-ant is characterized by the objects which areincluded, their layout and their connectionamong each other.The size of the main er-ection unit is not part of the variant cha-racterization. In the PDM, the objects of themain erection unit variant which are notneeded are deleted or replaced by new ob-jects which have been selected from thenext level, such as the erection unit, equip-ment unit, valve unit or pipe section. In theexample, the main erection unit variant“+B4—v1” has been chosen as the startingpoint. For the selection of the process unitvariant, the variant “G2--v2” (figure 2) waschosen.Therefore, it is necessary to replacethe erection unit variant “B4B1—v1” (figure4) with erection unit variant “B4B1—v2” (fi-gure 5) in the selected main erection unitvariant“+B4—v1”.

After the selection in the PDM, the 3Dmodels will be automatically loaded in the3D-CAD application for the delta-engineer-ing. This includes all activities from the se-lected templates which comprise a com-plete and in itself consistent 3D model ofthe plant.A relationship must be established

between the object (i.e.,Pump G2G1) in the PFD(figure 1), the object (i.e.,pump unit G2G1 in theP&ID (figure 3) and the3D-CAD model,allowing the describedworkflow. The objectsbelonging to the pumpunit must be marked assuch during the buildupof the P&ID.The designercan then take this struc-ture into account in thebuildup of the 3D modeland define the interfacesof the pump unit. There-fore, all objects such asshut-off valves, three-wayvalves, filters, non-returnvalves, piping sectionsand steelwork, which be-long to the pump unit aredefined. Similar to themain erection unit vari-ant, the pump unit is cha-racterized by the objectsincluded, their layout andinterconnection. As a re-sult, a built variant from aproject contains the fullBill of Material (BOM)and its associated cost.The BOM and the associ-ated cost can be display-ed with the pump objectin the PFD through theexisting relationship. Andhere it applies, too, thatchoosing the right structure levels and addi-tional descriptions for the reuse depends onthe business model, on the functions and onthe desired flexibility and its handling. Thisalso includes the “intelligence” of the 3D-CAD-application. It has already become evi-dent that in the future this kind of applica-tion will allow more associative and rule ba-sed design work. This means that once anequipment unit variant, erection unit variantor main erection unit variant has been de-veloped for a project of a certain size, thedesign of this variant can be adapted auto-matically when a different size is chosen.However, it might still take another coupleof years before engineering reuse will workout on the above described level.

The companies that underwent a bench-marking within a Fiatech study (I,2) indicat-ed that applying engineering reuse providedthem with significant competitive advanta-ges. Improvements were made regardingproject cycle, costs and quality of their pro-jects. Experience gained from the coopera-tion in Engineering Reuse has resulted in thefollowing benefits for companies:● Reduced risk by the reuse of tried and

tested solutions. As it is possible to fallback on operational experience when anew design is considered, this will signifi-cantly improve the “Fit for Purpose”.

● Shorter project cycle time due to a sim-plified workflow as well as less iterationsteps due to faster access to moredetailed information on further pro-cessing. Besides, the latter allows moreactivities in parallel.

● Up to fifty percent less work in engineer-ing, purchasing and project managementactivities if this is the main target.The re-sources gained from this can be used foradditional optimization.

To guarantee success of engineering re-use projects as desired, a long-term vision ofthe planned use of the methodology in dailybusiness is required. Projects should be giv-en a clear time frame. The individual sub-projects should be defined in regard to theirgeneral benefit. In addition, a logical order ofsubprojects has to be planned in order toguarantee regular benefit of the subprojectresults in daily business.

For the engineering activities with reusepotential defined in the “Project Charter”, aclear workflow including reuse and its sub-stantial results should be defined (see figure6). At the same time, the required reusestructures that will allow this workflow, areto be developed. In a second step the struc-tures will be defined further and more pre-cisely. In addition, plants and systems thathave already been built or developed, are

Figure 4: Erection unit variant + B4B1– v1: Feedwater treatment

Figure 5: Erection unit variant + B4B1– v2: Feedwater treatment

VariantSize class

Pump unit

VariantSize class

Pump unit

IV digitalPLANT Business+Engineering

modelled (mapped) hereupon.The requiredGUIs, methods and data models will be de-fined and programmed for the prototype ITapplication. Step 3 is critical regarding thefurther acceptance in the implementationstep. For the first time, selected engineersfrom the project execution operation willtest the workflow and the correspondinglyrequired IT applications. Step 4 is importantfor sufficient data to be stored which ena-bles users to make effective use of the sys-tem for their engineering tasks.This will sub-stantially increase the acceptance of the me-thodology. As usual for IT applications, usersneed intensive and repeated training. Parallelto such a project, the implementation of ameasurement system is highly recommen-ded to manage for the success of the pro-ject and to make further required improve-ments more comprehensible.

And now a a few words regarding IT.Thecorrect IT functionalities support engineer-ing reuse, however, they are not sufficientfor a successful realization. Those workingwith this methodology will soon realize thatmany of the company data are available inmultiple but slightly different versions. Thiskind of project contributes to the genera-tion of a more standardized data model incompanies.The new development of a datamodel is not yet a prerequisite for furtherprogress in engineering reuse. In fact, it is re-asonable to base future developments to-wards engineering reuse on the IT applica-tions available in the engineering to avoidthe organization being overloaded with toomany changes at once. However, new ver-sions of the applications with more functio-nalities should be considered to facilitateengineering reuse in the tools (data centricsystems). Unfortunately, experience has

shown that the range of function of the en-gineering systems regarding PDM functiona-lity is limited. For realizing engineering reuseon a large scale, however, a PDM applicationis essential. The first productive prototypewith a limited number of users could be re-alized with a database such as MS-Access, ifnecessary.

Engineering reuse means a long journeythat needs careful planning. The projectshould be divided immediately into smallersubprojects which allow a fast implementa-tion (three to six months) and which areable to show a benefit.

It can indeed make sense to link an engi-neering reuse project with a modulariza-tion/standardization project if the resourcesavailable allow for this. The new structuresneeded here should be defined as close aspossible to the already existing structuressuch as process units, systems, erectionunits and their variants. This gets users toaccept and finally to apply the additionalreuse structures. The key to success is: theconsistent realization of the reuse structurein each new plant while the emphasis isclearly on “consistent” and, besides, on theapplied tagging system.

The reuse structure furthermore offersthe ideal structure to assign plant or systemcosts. It is therefore reasonable to assign thedifferent cost elements to the first reusestructure from the very first project.This in-cludes, for example, engineering hours, ifthey are to be reduced, or hardware costs,if companies seek to optimize their plants.

There is no time to lose. If an idea of therequired basic functionalities, the amount ofdata and the number of users is already ex-isting, companies should not hesitate to de-cide on the IT architecture. Based on this ar-

chitecture, implementations of prototypescan take place. Experience has shown that itmakes sense to keep to the basic principlesof the 6-sigma method which means that aproject leader experienced in workflow im-provement is acting as team manager in anengineering reuse project, that the divisionsinvolved are represented by team membersand that an expert with relevant IT expe-rience should also be part of the team.Theproject team leaders should meet at leastonce a month to check on the project sta-tus and to take corrective action, if necessa-ry, to motivate the team and the organiza-tion.

ALAIN AERNI

The author is the general manager ofAerni Consulting based in Zurich.The company operates in the field ofinnovation, product development,modularization/standardization,engineering reuse and workflowimprovements (6-sigma projects) incl.cost models in the plant and systembusiness.Tel.: +41-792233989E-Mail: aerni.alain@ggaweb.ch

References(1) Fiatech Fully Integrated andAutomated Technologies for the PlantIndustries, „Reuse of Information Study:Benchmarking Best Practices”-Task 1Report, November 2002(2) Fiatech Fully Integrated andAutomated Technologies for the PlantIndustries, „Benefits and Barriers toEngineering Information Reuse” Task 2Report, January 2003

INFOCORNER

Development of a prototype to get fast benefits from engineering reuse for bids and project execution

Define workflows andmain outputs

Define structures, ITfunctionalitiesand modelling

Testworkflows andIT-application(Prototype)

Adapt prototypeand load data ofmodeledplants/systems

Implement firstworkflow changes for bidsand project execution

Measurement system

built/developed plants/systems

1 2 3 4 5

Bids

First projectexecution

WHITE PAPER

digitalPLANT Business+Engineering V

As already presented in the Engineer-ing Reuse White Paper (1), engineer-

ing/construction/procurement firms aremaking use of the methodology of modula-rization and standardization (M/S) to be-come more competitive. Impressive proof ofthe performance capability of this strategyhas been provided by various sectors of manufacturing industry such as automotive,aeronautical or machinery. However, the si-tuation in plant and system engineering dif-fers in respect of two important factors:● the volume produced (only a few plantsper year, as opposed to hundreds or thou-sands of planes, machines or cars)● the complexity of the different functional

requirements and standards of the custo-mer groups.

Although the general principles for sav-ings through economies of scale and scopeare of course also valid in the field of plantand system engineering, M/S had found it dif-ficult to enter this area with alasting effect. The reasons for this relate inpart to the markets for plant engineeringand system engineering, which for a longtime were characterized by national mono-polies. Thus it is only in recent years thatM/S came to be used for technical solutionsthrough to the level of hardware modules,with the aim of lowering investment costs.The benefits of this can be seen in the re-duction in engineering hours, and in reduc-ing costs in production and/or procure-ment. Depending on the customer segment(each type of customer accepts a particulartype of standards), the business model (aparticular price policy and adhering to se-lected standards) and the engineering reuseapplications available, it was possible to ap-ply the methodology with varying degreesof success.

Combined cycle power plant as casestudy. When optimizing the water/steamcycle (see figure 1) for a combined cycle po-wer plant with gas and steam turbines, it canbe established relatively quickly that the im-provements from one cycle configuration to

the next, based on the Net Present Value(NPV) for the plant operator, amount to amaximum of 2 to 3 percent of the costs ofinvestment. However, if a plant can be left asit is (“copy exactly!“, as Intel describes in(2)), this results in savings of between 5 and

The article presents the me-thodology of a standardiza-tion strategy especially forthe development and con-struction of plants andsystems. The aim is to famil-iarize the reader with thekey drivers and possibleapproaches. Tips on imple-mentation round off thearticle.

GlossaryNet Present Value model: profitabi-lity model which calculates back the ge-nerated annual cash flow (differencebetween revenues and expenditures)for the plant or system over its econo-mic lifetime, to the year of first beingtaken into operation (using weightedaverage capital costs) Learning curve: graphical display ofthe cost reduction achieved on the ba-sis of experiences, or reduction of er-rors, e.g. through improved manufac-turing processes. The learning curve isshown as a function of the cumulativeproducts produced (most often with alogarithmic scale). It is sometimes alsodescribed as the “experience curve” orthe “Boston effect“. A very graphicexample is the reduction in the assem-bly time required for an Ikea chair (wellknown in Europe), comparing the firstwith an identical second chair.

Modularization andStandardizationin Plant and SystemEngineering

VI digitalPLANT Business+Engineering

20 percent, depending on the effects of thedoubling of the number of plants (the “Bos-ton effect“). Admittedly, in reality changesare generally necessary due to different re-quirements or new technologies being used.The total achievable savings are influencedby the suitability for purpose of the modu-les and standards developed, the reusabilityof documents and models (contracts, speci-fications, drawings, 3D CAD models etc.) inthe execution workflow, and through to thesupplier. Experience shows that good M/Scan be achieved if the reciprocal influence ofthe following five drivers is taken into ac-count:● defining the application ranges and focus-

ing on the economically attractive ones ● optimizing technical solutions ● standardizing technical solutions ● defining modules, optimizing their con-

tent and interfaces ● exploiting learning curves

These key drivers are described in detailbelow. Figure 2 shows an example of how areduction in the application range can leadto noticeable cost reductions, but withoutnoticeably impairing the achievable marketvolume. The challenge is to identify, for theplant to be modularized/standardized, therange in which a functional requirementsuch as the ambient design temperature hasan impact on costs, and the range wherethere is hardly any influence on costs, whilsthaving a large influence on market volume.For example, in considering the Heat Reco-very Steam Generator (see figure 1) withthe specified gas turbine type, it was foundthat for different ambient design temperatu-res the Heat Recovery Steam Generatorshould be copied exactly, in order to achie-ve the full cost reduction through exploitingthe learning curve. With another powerplant supplier, certain modifications weremade to the superheater tube bundles inorder to reduce the costs at higher ambientdesign temperatures.Accordingly, the learn-ing curve could only be used for a lowermarket volume.

A further example. Should the equip-ment or machines for a chemical plant be in-stalled precisely for a fixed throughput, orshould they be able to cover a certain rangeof possible throughputs? If the share ofcosts for engineering and work preparationfor this is substantial by comparison withthe costs of materials, then it is sensible todivide up the throughput ranges into sizeclasses. For each size class, there should onlybe one product size. It is also worth men-tioning here that with smaller plants moreshould be modularized and standardized, be-cause the administrative and the engineeringcosts are higher by comparison with thehardware costs. Additionally the benefits ofoptimization are smaller in absolute termswith smaller plants.

Figure 3 is a model showing how thetechnical solution is optimized for a particu-lar target market segment. It involves com-paring possible known solutions with regard

to investment costs and performance withfactors affecting profitability such as thecosts of fuel, electricity prices and weightedaverage cost of capital in the target marketsegments, using the NPV method. This ap-proach is practically the same for powerplant buildings and for chemical or petro-chemical plant buildings. The improvementsrealized were of the order of 15 percent ofthe NPV in a chemical plant building andaround 3 percent for a power plant building.

Figure 4 demonstrates how the reuse ofan optimally standardized technical solutionresults in a higher NPV for the plant opera-tor. Let us take the example of awater/steam cycle with triple pressure with-out reheat for a combined cycle powerplant, that was selected in optimizing thetechnical solution for the target market seg-ment (based on the criteria of average fuelcosts). Given the cost savings through reuse,this solution can also be more suitable in adifferent market segment (high fuel costs)than the technical solution with a higher ef-ficiency (triple pressure with reheat) whichwould probably have been the optimal solu-

tion for that market segment.The choice ofa standardized water/steam cycle can resultin the Process Flow Diagram (1) being thesame for the scope, and accordingly the as-sociated Piping & Instrumentation Diagramand the 3D CAD model (1) can also be thesame.

No magic solution. Figure 5 is a modelshowing that while increasing the content inthe modules leads to lower costs with re-use, it can also mean that the achievablemarket volume reduces as a result. Let uslook again at the example of the Heat Re-covery Steam Generator. For the first pow-er plant supplier, the Heat Recovery SteamGenerator was a module which was intend-ed to contain exactly the same hardwarefrom one project to the next. For the sec-ond power plant supplier, the module wassub-divided into:● the superheater tube bundles, which

formed a separate module adapted depend-ing on the ambient design temperature

● the other components (ducts, steelwork,pipes, valves, and other tube bundles)formed a further module

Heat RecoverySteam Generator

Feedwatertreatment

steam turbine

Condensateconditioning

gasturbine

Figure 1:Water/steam cycle for acombined cyclepower plant

0%

20%

20%

50%cost

reduction

give up market volume

40%

60%

80%

100%

Application range

50%

30%

10%

70%

90%

10% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

plant costs

accessiblemarket volume

Figure 2:Define application

ranges and focus onattractive ones

Example

MARKET VOLUMEPLANT COSTS

WHITE PAPER

digitalPLANT Business+Engineering VII

Accordingly, the savings from reusewere less for the second power plantsupplier, but the costs for the powerplant at higher ambient temperatureswere lower to offset this. Optimizingthese effects within their specific busi-ness environment has resulted in thesetwo power plant suppliers choosing dif-ferent modularization concepts. In a mo-dularization project, the focus is also ondefining the modules, their content, theirinterfaces, and also their size classes for thechosen product segments. In the exampleabove, only a single size class was specified,which was determined by the type of gasturbine.

Figure 6 illustrates exploiting the learningcurve with validity for an entire plant, oralso with validity for only a single module. Inplant/system engineering, so far these lear-ning curves have barely been measured orspecified as an objective – unlike in airplanemanufacturing, for example.

It pays off. The companies which werecarrying out M/S projects indicated thatthey were able to achieve cost reductions ofbetween 10 and 20 percent, calculated usingthe NPV method. Half of these improve-ments came from improving the technicalsolution for a market segment, and theother half from reusing hardware modulesand accordingly also reusing engineeringservices, i.e. exploiting the learning curve. In-direct improvements with regard to projectthroughput time of around 25 percent werenot uncommon. Here, too, a measurementsystem is of major importance to bring tolight both progress and problems (2).

In order for an M/S project to lead to thesuccess desired, a clear scope needs to bedefined which is based on the most attracti-ve market segments or product segments.Aclear time frame should be specified for theproject.

Figure 7 shows the general approach. Forthe areas, which have been defined, in a firststep a quantitative analysis is made of:● the functional requirements needed in

future, including cluster analysis of requi-rements which have an influence on mo-dularization

● the size of the market which stands be-hind the cluster requirements.

A comparison with the plants which havealready been built can be helpful. In parallelwith this (step 2), the mutual interaction ofthe different requirements, such as fuelcosts, are calculated with the plant configu-rations, e.g. triple pressure for thewater/steam cycle, and the key parametersfor the equipment, such as live steam pres-sure and temperature. For this, the costsand the performance characteristics of pro-mising configurations and equipment para-meters are examined and compared in aNPV model.The analysis of customer requi-

rements of the initiallydefined market segmentsand their impact on theoptimal plant configura-tion and equipment pa-rameters, combined withthe expected cost sa-vings from the five dri-vers, make it possible todefine plant configura-tions which appeal tolarger market segments.The aim is therefore toreduce the number ofoptions as far as possi-ble, in order to achievefewer product segments.Each product segment is

defined by its optimalplant configuration andthe associated equipmentparameters.

At the end of step 2,modules are definedwhich occur in differentproduct segments, in or-der to tap into furtherpotential cost reductions.In the third step, the indi-vidual modules such asHeat Recovery SteamGenerators for a combi-ned power plant are loo-

ked at in more detail.The procedure is simi-lar to that for plant configurations: as far aspossible, attempts are made to reuse modu-les – if necessary, by creating sub-modulesfrom one product segment to another.Thisis carried out at hardware level, because thisoffers the greatest savings potential. Hereagain, the challenge is to optimize the de-sign. For example, on the Heat RecoverySteam Generators it was possible to save atotal of 10 percent of the costs through anew thermal design of the tube bundles andthrough integrating different functions“transport ancillary“ (bracing) and “flue gascasing“.

At this level, it is often necessary to choose between “over-design“ (in orderthat the module can be used for a largermarket volume) and the savings from explo-iting the learning curve.This optimization isalso carried out using a NPV model.The re-sult is an even more accurate definition ofthe modules, sub-modules and possibly sub-sub-modules, their reuse strategy and thesize they can accommodate. It can also be asensible approach to develop a parametricdesign model for a specific module, forexample in those instances where the hard-ware costs with over-design weight moreheavily than exploiting the learning curve.

Before the M/S concept is definitively im-plemented, the concept and the proposednew designs need to be checked using theVoice of the Customer.We recommend fiveworkshops lasting one to two days per cu-stomer – depending on the complexity ofthe system/plant.The customer makes avai-lable a multi-disciplinary team, and a selec-ted collection of design options are pres-ented. These are assessed using a modified“Quality-Function-Deployment (QFD)” me-thodology. The outcome can certainly pro-duce surprising results: for example, afterone such meeting the technical solution fa-vored by the power plant supplier, involvinga fast-rotating high-pressure and medium-

2

4

6

8

% efficiency gain

Not selected

10

1 2 3 4 5

% c

ost i

ncre

ase

selected

Triple pressure reheat

s = 4.2

s = 1.2 Triple pressure

Dual pressure

Alternative solutions

• Dual pressure cycle• Triple pressure cycle• Triple pressure reheat cycle

Target marketeconomics

s = : 1.5 - 2.51

1) for equal plant project Net present value

∆ cost (%)

∆ efficiency (%)

Figure 4: Standardize technical solutions

60%

80%

100%

Degree of reuse of standardized technical solution

110%

90%

70%

20%

NPV for operatorof plant

40% 60% 100%80%0%

Plant performance

Plant cost

Figure 3:Optimize technicalsolutions

Example

Example

VIII digitalPLANT Business+Engineering

a different influence on the learning be-havior can also lead to different modulesand reuse strategies

The proposal should be focused as quick-ly as possible on a single plant or systemtype, so that it can be rapidly implemented(in a time-frame of around six months) andthe benefit demonstrated.This helps in brin-ging those who are skeptical about M/S inthe company on board. If resources permit,it makes sense to combine an engineeringreuse pilot project with an M/S project.

Experience shows that even for M/S pro-jects it is sensible to respect the principlesof 6-sigma projects.Team members from Sa-les/Marketing, Development, Engineering,Procurement and Cost Estimating should berepresented. If the company operates on aglobal footing, it is also important to include

those with regional re-sponsibility within thecompany. The most ex-perienced engineers arethe ones who should beinvolved in the team, sothat the results whichemerge are not again called into question inthe course of “daily busi-ness“. The team mem-bers should view the M/Sproject as having the hig-hest priority. Otherwisethere is a risk of the pro-ject being delayed byoperational business andpossibly losing momen-tum for implementation.If this cannot be guaran-teed from the organiza-tional point of view, it isbetter to accept delaysthan to forego using theexperienced team mem-bers. The use of an ex-ternal consultant is sen-

pressure steam turbine, was rejected due toa lack of a convincing reference for its gear-box size.

The customer feedback therefore makesit possible to assist the M/S plant/system inachieving greater acceptance and to ensurea successful launch. These workshops alsoprovide important suggestions as to thecontent of the communications whichshould accompany the launch of the newplants/systems.

What we have learned. Like engineer-ing reuse, M/S is a continuous process:● customer behaviors change (national

companies which become globally oper-ating companies)

● new technologies lead to different plantconfigurations or changed modules

● new manufacturing processes which have

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

Module content

50%

30%

10%

70%

90%

Small Large

Cost reductionpotential

Accessiblemarket volume

100%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

No. of units

50%

30%

10%

70%

90%

2

Learning curve

Order-specificoptimization

100%

4 8 16

Figure 7: General Approach

Figure 5 (left): Define modules, optimize their content and interface

The author is the general manager ofAerni Consulting based in Zurich.The company operates in the field ofinnovation, product development,modularization / standardization,engineering reuse and workflowimprovements (6-sigma projects) incl.cost models in the plant and systembusiness.Tel.: +41-7922-33989E-Mail: aerni.alain@ggaweb.ch

References(1) digitalPLANT in CADplus 4/2004,“The Best Way to Engineering Reuse”,Goeller Publishing, Baden-Baden(2) Fully Integrated and AutomatedTechnologies for the Plant Industries(Fiatech),“Reuse of InformationStudy: Benchmarking Best Practices”Task 1 Report, November 2002, and,“Benefits and Barriers to EngineeringInformation Reuse” Task 2 Report,January 2003

INFOCORNERSo

urce

(all)

: Aut

hor

Technology Development

Selectmarket/product

segments

Optimizeplant

configura-tions

Optimizeselectedmodules

Customerworkshops(optional)

BidsFinalize plantmodules for

Bids

Defineworkflows andmain outputs

Definestructures, ITfunctionalitiesand modelling

Testworkflows andIT-application(prototype)

Adapt prototypeand load data of

modeledplants/systems

Implement firstworkflow

changes for bidsand projectexecution

Approach for Engineering Reuse

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Figure 6: The more reuse effects can be generated, the steeper thelearning curve will become (5 - 20 %).

Example%

Rel

ativ

e co

sts

Example

WHITE PAPER

sible in order to contribute additional ex-pertise and other viewpoints to the project,to keep it better on track.The external ex-pert is a support if there is a need to winpeople over to the project, which is especi-ally important where there are trans-regio-nal teams or very functionally oriented or-ganizations.

The project steering committee shouldcommit at least an hour once a month to di-recting the project and giving the team thenecessary impetus to progress.This is espe-cially important since a rethink-ing processneeds to take place amongst the manage-ment team. If not, there is a risk that every-thing will be sold apart from the M/S results,developed with the great effort of the M/S-team, often working through the differentopinions and strong beliefs. The results ofthe customer workshops can be very hel-pful for this necessary work of winning peo-ple over to the new ideas.

ALAIN AERNI