Five steps to prep for successful engineering project management

Explore the dynamics between engineering firms and project owners in the execution of front-end loaded (FEL) engineering projects.

 

Engineering project insights

• This article aims to share best practices informed by situations on both ends of this spectrum with example cases from the author’s experience.
• It emphasizes the importance of effective communication and coordination by sharing best practices and lessons learned from various case studies from practice.

---

The engagement between engineer of record (EOR) consulting firms and project owners when delivering front-end loaded (FEL) engineering projects is a crucial element of project execution. When done correctly, project success is not only plausible but likely.

Conversely, improper execution can lead to confusion, frustration and significant project risks or even failure.

We know that engineers and technical leaders excel at addressing highly complex and challenging technical problems. Where we often fall short is in the arena of communication and coordination. Without propagating stereotypes, it’s well-known that engineers, in general, excel at the technical but can struggle with communication. “Will you design a distillation column? Sure! Can you tell me how it works? Uh…”

Humor aside, in the world of capital FEL engineering project execution, this communication shortfall can be a serious detriment. According to a study by the Project Management Institute (PMI), 30% of project failures are directly attributed to poor communication. Alarmingly, five additional factors listed in the study are communication-oriented, contributing to essentially all listed mechanisms for project failures.

While multiple factors can and do contribute to project failures, particularly in complex engineering projects, this statistic highlights the critical importance of good coordination and the harsh costs of poor communication. In short, if one substantial contributing factor to failures can be reduced or eliminated through improved skills or awareness, it stands to reason that such improvement should be pursued.

Here are five maxims to keep in mind when, as an owner, you are engaging with an engineering firm or, as an engineering service provider, you are serving a project owner.

Engineering project management in five steps

1. Knowledge has momentum: balancing historical knowledge and fresh perspectives in project management 

There is immense value in the historical and institutional knowledge an owner has over its processes, methods and experiences. However, there is also significant value in the fresh perspective that an outside set of eyes can bring to a given problem statement.

For a project to succeed, a balance must be achieved between these inputs. It’s a simple enough concept but it can be challenging to argue between the mindsets of “we’ve always done it that way” and “this way is new and improved.” Historical experience should be tempered with and arbitrated against new technologies or methods to find the best-fit solution to a given problem or application.

One method by which this balance can be achieved is to recognize that knowledge, from both the institutional and new perspectives, has momentum. Experienced owners are accustomed to the success they’ve had using a given method or technology. In contrast, fresh perspective may illuminate improved technologies that offer capital, compliance, safety or other improvements.

Finding balance is often then a case of not necessarily finding the right answer, especially if both are acceptable, but finding the right answer within the context of a project. If a project is in its early stages, time and the ability to incorporate discovery are on the side of the new method. Capital is not yet fixed and the timeline can afford owners the ability to vet new technologies or processes to ascertain validity in a new installation. This freedom to explore can afford a new approach the energy needed to build momentum within a project.

In the early phases of an engineering project (FEL phase 1 or 2), either the merits of the new approach can be highlighted, the case made and minds changed or further evaluation may find that the previous method remains preferable without significant penalty. Conversely, in the later stages of a project, capital is fixed or even partially committed, timelines are aggressive and change is a delicate subject.

Consequently, in the later stages of a project (FEL phase 3 and beyond), while new technology may have sparkling attributes, there is little to no freedom to develop its momentum. Decisions have been made, designs advanced, permits are in progress and so on. In this case, if the incumbent is not definitively wrong then it must be right and getting “righter than right” has little merit.

Example case: In a recent animal feed project, a new compliance issue was raised to an owner’s team by the EOR, identifying the likely need to mitigate odor as part of a new dryer installation. The owner insisted that odor management was not compulsory at any of its other existing installations and the suggestion was disregarded.

Regrettably, the advice proved prescient as the permitting authority ultimately required a scrubber on the dryer exhaust, resulting in permit award delays and unplanned additional capital engineering and expense for the scrubbing system. Had the project team, EOR and owner been able to overcome this clear momentum imbalance, the challenges this late-stage change imposed on the project could have been avoided.

2. Listen to guidance: unlock the power of expert insights for engineering project success 

Building on the above concept of specialized knowledge and its value, it’s clear that communication is a critical component of successful engineering projects. This criticality extends beyond the fully engaged project team to also include subject matter experts engaged to provide guidance and oversight. It is crucial to listen to the experts’ guidance — it’s what they are paid to provide.

Subject matter experts are engaged for their specialized insight into important details, large and small, that may otherwise be overlooked or considered minutiae. In many cases, these insights may be the difference between a solution meeting compliance criterion. Whether these experts are owners, EORs or third-party consultants, there is a reason their input is solicited. Disregarding it for cost, simplicity or pride is a perilous decision.

It is not always easy to hear that a solution is flawed or missing critical elements. Self-preservation is a powerful motivator and a natural human reaction can be to be defensive of yourself or your project teammates. While it’s commendable that a tightly knit project team be defensive of their own, recognition that the guidance received is “in the family” and intended only to mitigate future headaches — potentially serious ones — is important.

Project teams should have a growth mindset when it comes to these inputs and be willing to learn and grow from the insight gained. At its core, this kind of information will help you stay out of difficulty.  Again, in the spirit of good communication, subject matter experts should recognize that delivery is nearly as important as the content. Simply telling teams their work is flawed and giving instruction on what to fix creates a difficult path to selling corrective suggestions.

Instead, asking questions to understand how a qualified team arrived at some solution in need of refinement and offering clarifying questions or observations is a far less stark delivery method — likely requiring less energy to implement.

As an example, a food ingredient project was undertaken that required the use of a highly dangerous substance, for which little literature was available. The team, consisting of both owner and EOR engineers, invested considerable effort to conceive a complex system to safely handle the substance.

Despite this effort, upon completing a robust safety review it was found that a few failure mechanisms remained plausible. The team was, at that point, stymied insofar as its ability to advance the design. Wisely, the project team, instead of continuing an inefficient and likely fruitless pursuit of a workable solution, engaged subject matter experts from the company producing the substance to gain best practices in its receipt, transport and use.

By seeking guidance and engaging these subject matter experts, the owner and EOR saved the project from considerable frustration and inefficiency and implemented a safe and capitally acceptable solution within time limits.

3. Seek and confirm understanding: ensure clear communication for project success 

It may seem evident, but it is essential for both owners and EORs to understand what they are asking or what is being asked of them, particularly in the early stages of project development. Developing a mutual and clear understanding of the expectations between parties is critical. Without this step, what may be obvious to one party may not be so to the other.

Consequently, even when clear deliverable types, descriptions and quantities are known or requested, the extent, quality, format or composition of these may be widely variable and subject to nuanced interpretation. For owners, it’s important for an EOR to understand what audience is receiving the work they are providing and what accountability the owner has to their executive leadership or project stakeholders. For EORs, it’s important to make clear to the owner that nuance exists in the development of deliverables and that customization of these can be achieved to contract to and stay within funding limits.

To achieve this understanding, proper planning is needed, even at the request for quotation or proposal development stage and certainly at project kickoff. Questions such as these are good examples:

• If providing an opinion of probable cost, who is the audience? How does the audience define varying levels of accuracy? Ultimately, what decisions will be made based on the work?
• If producing construction documents for a general contractor, what contracting strategies are they employing? What construction sequencing is needed to develop bid packages?
• If developing equipment specifications, will the equipment be competitively bid or single-sourced due to original equipment manufacturer history and knowledge?

For example, a startup nutraceutical project suffered from miscommunication regarding the nature of the installation to follow. Considerable work was invested by the EOR to develop a robust, industrial solution to building a proof-of-concept plant. Regrettably, what the owner had in mind was significantly capitally limited and a more “disposable” style construction was envisioned and substantial rework required. Had the owner and EOR taken the time to ensure that there was a clear understanding of the expectations and constraints, considerable frustration and delay could have been avoided for the project.

4. Saying no is important: prioritize project goals over pleasing clients 

It is typical to want to please clients or to be excited about a new and clever technology or gizmo. Additionally, most engineers are motivated by finding solutions to problems and so it is difficult to temper the instinct to improve upon a perfectly acceptable solution if such an option presents itself. This is a universal condition.

Owners are justifiably excited about the promise of a shiny new installation and it becomes easy to begin to add small bells and whistles to the project over time to make a shiny object even shinier. EORs also tend to find new elements to bring a project to a high polish, rewarded by owner enthusiasm or the simple satisfaction of finding a “better” solution. In either case, this enthusiasm overwhelms the very real and potentially negative project impacts of being a pleaser or pursuing the latest tech.

In the early stages of a project, exploration and discovery are normal and even welcome elements of project development. That said, these activities still must be tempered to stay within project constraints. Even in its infancy a project will have set criteria for success, albeit less firm than in later stages, whether it’s space, funding, production, etc. A new concept or idea should be tempered to confirm if it’s necessary to achieve the project goal or a nice to have element that may exceed one or more fundamental constraints.

In later stages of a project, constraints become much clearer. A budget is fixed, a schedule set, space allocated and so on. In these cases, it’s imperative to ask if a concept is something the project team must do or if it’s something they want to do. This isn’t to suggest that every idea should be declined. It’s altogether possible a nuanced improvement fits within project constraints and can deliver an improved solution without penalty.

Whether an idea is raised by an owner or an EOR, the project itself is best served by gauging impact before implementation. It may be less comfortable, but decision-makers on both the owner and EOR parts of the team gently saying no is a greater service to a project than simply being a pleaser.

In this instance, an agribusiness owner was in the middle of a large, highly complex facility expansion and technology upgrade. Following the completion of milestone engineering that secured funding, an additional process step was suggested to expand the portfolio of materials to be produced. The owner and EOR took the time to consider the potential project impact and determined that, while space and schedule would not be impacted, capital and permitting issues may arise and the idea was declined. The project was completed in a timely fashion and the bolt-on concept was executed later as a secondary project.

5. Discovery is inescapable: embrace discovery for collaborative engineering project success 

In most projects, particularly those dealing with novel or first-of-a-kind technologies, discovery is nearly unavoidable and resulting change must be managed. Change management is a topic discussed ad nauseam in countless articles on project management and execution and elsewhere. The point of this principle is not to discuss specific change management methodologies but to realize that the future is patently unknowable.

Mutual success hinges on all parties honestly identifying and addressing how discovery is to be handled within the bounds of the project. Owners are, justifiably, apprehensive about additional costs or fees associated with discovery, along with associated schedule, permit or other penalties. EORs are, similarly, reluctant to pursue change for fear of alienating a client or initiating conflict.

In contrast to the previous case, where saying “no” is a viable option, discovery constitutes that a condition or need has been identified that must be addressed for a project to meet its success criteria. In this case, it is best for owners to recognize that EORs have finite funding, resource and schedule limits that are oftentimes aggressive. A significant scope change can impose serious risks to the well-being of the EOR organization on that basis.

Similarly, EORs should keep in mind that owners have their own internal customers that they need to satisfy and discovery often results in challenging internal negotiations for funding or schedule relief. As a result, it’s best to recognize discovery as an element of the project that requires a coordinated response by the team. Rather than treating discovery as a point of conflict between owner and EOR, it’s easier to recognize the shared challenges it presents the team. This positioning allows for a collaborative strategy to be developed in the interests of both the owner and EOR.

For example, during development of a novel biological waste recycling process, it was discovered that the building into which the installation was being placed had certain previously unknowable fundamental structural deficiencies. The EOR, owner and construction manager collaborated to document the discovery and ideate a creative solution to minimize cost impact.

This collaborative approach gave the owner the information necessary to justify to its internal stakeholders the additional funding and time necessary to support the EOR and construction manager. As a result of this collaborative approach, conflict was minimized and the necessary relief was successfully achieved.

Engineering project management skills take time

These principles certainly do not comprise the entirety of the types of communication and coordination required for project success but are offered as examples of key learnings from experience to aid the reader in anticipating and mitigating potential problems on planned and in-progress projects.

When exercising the active exercises of balancing historical knowledge with new perspectives, listening to guidance, seeking and confirming understanding, saying no when necessary and managing discovery it becomes reasonable to expect positive project impacts. Greater project success, more stakeholder satisfaction and overall participant satisfaction are all reasonable outcomes.

That said, it’s easy to list these maxims as a simple list of tasks in a straightforward manner. It is far more challenging to exercise these maxims in practice and their successful deployment takes just that: practice. Experimenting with various methods will seed and develop these skills in practice. Having an open mind about potential false starts can help engineers learn and grow from these failures just as much as via successful deployments.