Chemical Engineering February 2017 - 68

ally such a counter argument results
from the project team's failure to effectively
explain a portion of the plans
or rationale related to a given topic,
or the occasional unwillingness of an
IPR team to accept an alternate approach.
Reconciling divergent views
is not always easy. The sponsors will
have to decide which view to follow
or ask for further work. In the latter
case, I would suggest that a different
person or team address the specific
issue in question. Sending the entire
IPR and project teams back to work
out the issue is often not productive.
FIGURE 4. 'Cold eyes' reviews can assist in making larger pilot plant and research projects proceed
more smoothly, allowing issues to be addressed and rectified earlier
* It was completely or significantly
overlooked by the project team
* The project team's analysis of the
effect is deemed by the IPR to be
incorrect or at least badly flawed
* The IPR's combined actual experience
with the proposed approach
has shown significant problems on
similar past projects that have not
been adequately ameliorated by
the project team's existing plan
These are fairly high hurdles, but
they provide useful benchmarks to
consider, to clearly separate significant
issues from potential problems
or simple concerns about alternate
approaches. Most IPRs should not
be finding many significant issues
unless the project team is really not
qualified or competent.
List
in
backup
less-critical observations
information
or
an
appendix, providing clear documentation
that these issues have
been reviewed with the project
team, are being addressed and
pose no significant problems.
Many, observations in my experience,
require no real action and just
perhaps a heightened sense of caution
or wariness to make sure they
do not escalate. Bringing them to
the sponsor's attention rarely is necessary.
However, when all are raised
in the body of the final report they
often hide the main issues, create a
backlash with the project team (who
may feel " nitpicked " ) and create a
sense of unease in some sponsors,
particularly those with less experience
or more exacting standards,
that the project team is not doing its
68
job well enough.
Problems must be clearly and
unequivocally stated in the final
report. Trying to work the issue so
as not to assign blame or needlessly
provoke project personnel is certainly
desirable - but not at the cost
of losing the criticality of the issue.
Deciding what is " politically appropriate
wording " versus clear communication
is never easy. My suggestion
is to make sure to state the issue as
clearly as possible without any rationale
or softening.
IPRs that do not identify any major
issues should say so and not fill
the final report with minor issues.
There is a strong tendency to dig even
deeper, to raise any concern that can
be seen and to produce something to
justify the time and effort. Shouldn't
the IPR always seek to suggest better
approaches, or identify areas of
weakness or concern (no matter how
minor), to help make the project better?
I don't think mentioning a host of
minor issues (if that is all the IPR team
could find) to the project team has
any downside. However, I do think
that raising them to the sponsor level
provides little upside.
The project team must have the
ability to give its view of the IPR's
concerns, to allow them to correct
a misconception, clarify an issue
or highlight an error. If the process
has worked well, the project team
will normally tend to agree with the
concern and then present proposed
corrective measures. The team may
sometimes disagree with the IPRs
assessment for valid reasons. UsuClosing
thoughts
IPRs for research projects are valuable
and useful tools. But like any
tool, they can be used less effectively
if their limitations are not recognized,
and if some basic guidelines are not
followed. IPRs are intended to provide
a review of the project team's plan.
That review is only focused on one
specific moment in time. Regardless
of how good the IPR is, how carefully
its recommendations are followed, or
how diligent the review, even the best
IPR cannot guarantee a successful
project. If the approaches decided
upon (by the project team, or recommended
by the IPR) are not effective,
if the project team does not have the
skill and expertise to execute the project,
if outside events arise that were
not considered, projects will still suffer.
However, a good IPR can improve
the project's odds of success. n
Edited by Suzanne Shelley
Author
Richard P. Palluzi, P.E., CSP, of
Richard P Palluzi LLC (72 Summit
Dr., Basking Ridge, NJ 07920;
Email:
rpalluzi@verizon.net;
Phone: 908-285-3782) is a consultant
to the pilot plant and laboratory
research community on
safety, design and research project
management. He retired as a
Distinguished Engineering Associate
after almost 40 years at ExxonMobil Research and
Engineering, where he was involved in the design, construction,
and support of pilot plants and laboratories for
ExxonMobil's research site in Clinton, N.J., as well as
affiliates worldwide. Palluzi is the author of two books,
and numerous articles and presentations. He is a past
chair of the AIChE Pilot Plant Committee, ExxonMobil's
Pilot Plant and Laboratory Safety Standards Committee,
and ExxonMobil's Safe Operation Team for their Clinton
Facility. He is on the National Fire Protection Association
(NFPA) NFPA-45 Fire Protection for Laboratories Using
Chemicals and NFPA-55 Industrial and Medical Gases
committees. Palluzi also teaches several courses for
the University of Wisconsin's Dept. of Engineering Professional
Development. He has B.E. and M.E. degrees
in chemical engineering
of Technology.
from Stevens Institute
CHEMICAL ENGINEERING WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM
FEBRUARY 2017

http://WWW.CHEMENGONLINE.COM

Chemical Engineering February 2017

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of Chemical Engineering February 2017