A HUMANISTIC APPROACH TO MANAGING PLANT MODERNIZATION PROJECTS Ted Coonan Shell Oil Company Deer Park Manufacturing Complex

P.O. Box 100 Deer Park, TX 77536 David Strobhar Beville Engineering, Inc. 201 West Franklin, Suite D Dayton, OH 45459 ABSTRACT Plant and refinery modernization/re-instrumentation not only requires changes to the units operating structure but also provides an opportunity for change. Identification of the changes that are to occur with modernization and managing those changes are critical to project success. Identification of change requirements involves looking at the impact of modernization and re-visitation of all facets of unit operation. Selection, training, staffing, job design should all be examined to determine what must be altered to accommodate modernization and what should be altered to enhance productivity. Unfortunately, the changes, both required and those to enhance productivity, create anxiety in the work force. Recognizing and dealing with the natural fear of change in the work place are key elements in the success of any significant job realignment. The Transition Manager should (1) conduct an accurate assessment of the needs real and perceived of impacted personnel to accept and master the proposed changes to their work style; (2) develop a comprehensive plan to satisfy these needs; (3) secure a firm and visible commitment by senior management to that plan; and (4) execute that plan with the assistance of the maximum practical number of impacted personnel. This paper will describe application of these principals in a petrochemical environment. The specific case to be examined will involve the merger of several control rooms from different operating departments into a single consolidated control room with an accompanying upgrade of instrumentation from pneumatic to electronic, and an associated realignment of operator roles from independent unit operators to co-dependent mini-teams of control and field operators. The opportunity to overlay additional organizational changes and productivity improvements in a transitional environment will also be discussed.

1.

INTRODUCTION If the only thing that changes in your plant with re-instrumentation is the instrumentation, then you have made a big mistake.

Rarely do you find the management of a processing plant to say that they do not want to be a modern facility. The industry-wide trend toward distributed control highlights the need for plants to continually modernize in order to stay competitive. Although modernization is attempted at most plants through re-instrumentation, some seem to gain greater benefits from the modernization than do others. At those plants, where the introduction of distributed control is used to rethink and alter how the plant operates, the benefits of the re-instrumentation are typically multiplied. Installation of distributed control systems (DCS) provides a unique opportunity to alter not just the hardware of the plant, but the culture as well. All facets of how a plant continues its business become prime candidates for change during the modernization or re-instrumentation effort. Often changes are minimized when re-instrumentation occurs on the theory that the DCS will be disruptive and stressful. However, the real lesson is that other plant changes should be implemented with DCS implementation for that very reason. The technological change, the DCS implementation, creates a momentum of change that should be capitalized upon. The DCS will disrupt the operation of the unit, a disruption that extends beyond just the operators interface with the process. The disruption can be harnessed to facilitate changes in other aspects of unit operation, changes that will significantly enhance the long term viability of the plant. Although a plant is constantly changing, the change process achieves and equilibrium in the short term and operating characteristics stabilize. The different facets of operation balance, and a culture for the plant is established. The interactions between the different facets form bonds and result in a character for the unit, as represented in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Man-machine interactions The re-instrumentation will force a disruption to a number of the bonds (i.e. instrumentation). In addition, the momentum of change allows many of the other bonds to be easily broken and reformed in a manner that is most advantageous to the long term profitability of the unit. These same bonds often prove difficult to break and reform in the normal run-and-maintain mode of plant operation, either because they require too much effort to break or the incremental benefit in the reformation is not great.

The momentum of change must be harnessed or the result will be increased entropy, not enthalpy, of the system. The change associated wit the new technology, if not properly managed, will result in long term bad feelings, prevent the DCS from meeting its full potential, negatively impact project schedule, and increase the overall cost of the modernization through mis-training and reworking of the system. The entropy of the system has been increased due to the change in instrumentation. If the change is harnessed into useful energy, enthalpy, then the technology can result in a paradigm shift for the unit. In addition to new instrumentation, the entire manner in which the unit operates will be altered to a better state. The earlier the momentum of change is harnessed, the greater the benefit. Early minor corrections to the modernization process can produce the same effect as major corrections later on. The later in the project the culture change is attempted, the less that can be done and /or the more effort it will take to accomplish the change. For example, if operation of units is to be combined, then the operators will have to be cross-trained on the other units. If cross-training is begun early enough, then it has only minimal impact on the project. Cross-training done late can result in exorbitant overtime costs. Harnessing the momentum of change requires creation and execution of a human-side transition plan. It involves proper identification of what to change, developing the plan to accomplish the change or modernize, and managing the modernization. This paper describes an approach to managing the modernization effort based upon actual experiences in refining and chemical processing. The first part of the paper is a compilation of several efforts while the second part is a case study of a single modernization project. The focus of the paper is on the human aspect of modernization, capitalizing on the technical change to alter how the organization functions and carries out its business.

2.

IDENTIFY WHAT TO CHANGE

Harnessing the momentum of change required that the direction of change be established. This involves defining the characteristics that the plant should have in the future, how those differ from today, and what roadblocks exist to moving between the two. 2.1 Where do you want to be? Arriving at the desired destination requires at least some initial idea where you are going. This is the problem with most modernization efforts: no one has looked at what should be changed to enhance plant operation. How do you determine what needs to be changed? The basic method is to look at how you would operate a grassroots plant of comparable units. The current method of operating has evolved over time, but is probably is not fixed in stone. Look at the ideal, and then adjust. Take nothing for granted in what can change, with the likely exception of the geographic location of the units. All other aspects of plant operation should be candidates for change. Often change in one area is inhibited by the presumed inflexibility in another area. Dont assume that something is unchangeable unless it has been determined that the change would result in a serious degradation to the operation of the plant. Often a small sacrifice by one part of the organization can reap considerable gains for another part. For example, an operating position at one plant would have been overloaded with modernization if the operator still had to be responsible for some plant-wide utility systems (air, cooling water). Transfer of those responsibilities to another department with operators who had spare time allowed the modernization to continue with no increase in staffing level. Had it been assumed that tasks could not be transferred out of the department, then modernization would have had to increase its payback by the amount needed for additional operating position. Changes to the operation of the plant should not be constrained by current operating practices. The approach should be top-down, looking first at the overall organization and ending with the tasks that need to be performed by the operators. The initial assessment should not be constrained by the current organizational configuration, as the current structure might be the result of operating requirements that no longer apply. The examination should attempt to focus on the current strengths and weaknesses of the plant the strengths to be built upon and the weaknesses eliminated. The perception of the strengths and weaknesses should not be just those of management; the employees and/or the union often provide useful insight into organizational bottlenecks. The recent assessment of a refinery organization resulted in two key areas for change. One was the lack of ability to learn from past experiences. Refinery

personnel acknowledged that the same problems kept reappearing. A goal, then, of the modernization was to alter the organization such that the lessons from past problems could be captured, trended, and corrective actions quickly implemented. A second area was poor decision making at the refinery. This was an observation from the employees and the union, with which management disagreed. As a third party observer, it was apparent that the union was correct. Much of the problem stemmed from past autocratic management practices, long abandoned, that penalized decision-making. Another goal of the modernization was to create a structure that forces and promotes decision making at the appropriate level. Organizational change should focus on information flow. Who will be making decisions, how will those decisions be conveyed, and how will the information needed to make the decisions be transferred? The general trend toward flatter organizations and more autonomy at the working level needs to be evaluated. A major obstacle in organizational realignment is the tendency to base organizations at the upper level on geographic proximity. Plants with little or nothing in common often are under the same management because they are located next to each other. While geographic alignment is not inherently bad, dont assume it to be absolute. The individual jobs should be evaluated. What should the operator of the future be doing? What is the role of the foreman, head operator, and/or shift supervisor? Will maintenance need to change with the technological change, creating maintenance specialties? How will interactions within a department change, will the head operator be left out of the board/field operator loop? The board operator with disturbed control has certain inherent characteristics not present with the board operator on analog control. For example, he becomes much more of a focal point for information transfer than before. The impact of a DCS board operator should be thought out in advance. All of these questions should be defined proactively, not letting circumstance dictate the outcome. The tasks that make up an individual job should be evaluated. Are the tasks still serving a useful purpose or is there a better way to accomplish the same end? Logging readings for transfer to other departments is no longer necessary with distributed control. Logging readings to have the operator look at the readings may still be of value, but is there a better way? Likewise, are there certain tasks that, if automated, would significantly increase operator availability or productivity? General directions should be set for what the plant facilities should be in the next several decades. Increasing specialization of operators (e.g., dedicated board operators) should be established early. Likewise, how the staff will remain proficient on the new systems needs to be set forth. Finally, if increased specialization is to occur, what happens to the operators not electing or selected to take on the specialized jobs? Will a dual class citizenship result?

2.2 Where are you now? Once the final destination for modernization has been determined, the next question is, how far do you have to go to reach the destination? Like setting the destination, it is worthwhile not to rely just on management for determination. Far too often they have an overly optimistic view of current operating practices. While each area of the modernization goals should be compared to current characteristic, several key areas are almost always worth investigating. Current operator workload should be evaluated to determine opportunities for change and/or additions. Requirements for both normal and off-normal operations need to be specified. Normal operation is typically done through an examination of the amount of time and operator spends on job related tasks. A good level of steady state loading is 70-80 % for outside operations. Off-normal requirements are best handled through analysis of emergency response. How many asks must be performed in a short span of time, and how many operators are available to carry out those tasks? The results of the two analyses show how manpower might be realigned to enhance unit operation. Can jobs be re-aligned and/or can operators handle new/additional tasks? The current level of operator skill should be established. Are there operators being fully utilized, or are the board operators simply monitors (rather than optimizers), the supervisors simply clerks (rather than coaches), and the outside operators simply valve turners (rather than equipment specialists). How have the operators been trained over the past several years? Has training been informal and predominately oral in nature, or has a formal training program been utilized? Is the skill level of the operators such that they will be able to fully utilize the modernized facility? How will the operators transition to new skills? What is the level of cross-training? The current role of the foreman needs to be realistically appraised. What does the foreman or supervisor do in the current operation? Typically someone serves the function of the chief problem solver. What position handles this function? Is the foreman a super board operator, or is the foreman more involved in coaching/training? The appraisal needs to focus on what is really occurring in the plant, not what management would like to have occur. At one plant, the foremen were the real decision makers and troubleshooters, despite managements view that their job was primarily administrative. Removal of the foreman from close proximity to the unit resulted in worse unit operation, largely because the foremans real role was lost in the move. At another plant, the reduced visibility of the foreman encouraged the operators to take more responsibility for decisionmaking. In that case, operating skills and teamwork significantly improved. Maintenance covers a large range of activities that are subject to change. A key candidate for change is in the diagnostic portion of the maintenance process. An

Air Force study indicated that 70% of the maintenance time was spent on diagnostics, and only 30% on actual repair. Shifting some of the diagnostic responsibility to groups or individuals not in the repair section has some considerable advantages, from better diagnostics/work permits to increased operator trust in the maintenance group. The highly specialized nature of distributed control systems also necessitates that the maintenance function be reexamined. Internal customer/supplier relations should be defined, that is, who is to supply whom and how important is the material/ information? Where are the critical interactions and how might they be facilitated? A key method to define these relationships is through link analysis. In link analysis the interactions between system elements are graphically depicted. Usually for processing plants the key interacts are materially related, although other non-material relationships can be included. The relative importance of each interaction is shown, such as in Figure 2. Link analysis provides insights into diverse items such as organizational options and control center layout. High interaction links currently under different parts of the organization become candidates for change and/or close proximity in a new control center. The fundamental principle is the same: enhance the interactions and system performance will be enhanced, whether the enhancement is at the manager level (organization) or the board operator level (control room layout).

Figure 2. Link Analysis

2.3 What cant be changed Once the beginning and end points of the modernization goals have been established, those items that are unchangeable should be established. For

example, many plant managers initially would like to select who will be board operator, but if the plant has a collective bargaining agreement, dont expect that to happen without a labor dispute. However, management usually has the right to set job qualifications. If the qualification requirements reflect job demands and are fairly measured, they can be used to ensure that unqualified operators do not work the board position through objective testing. In addition, certain internal kingdoms may be sacrosanct and will not change with the current level of authority of the project. With one modernization effort, eliminating shift supervisory positions was fine, but the recommendation to eliminate a senior management position quickly killed the effort. Finally, the time required for some of the changes may be exorbitantly greater than is available for the project. Requiring operators to cross-train on numerous units may not be possible in the near term and has to be left as a long term goal. Just because an item is unattainable in the near term does not mean that it should be lost or abandoned. If a change would be beneficial, then the project should be structured so that it attains at least part of the change or sets the stage to later implement the change. Management at one facility desired to go to a single offshift supervisor in charge of the plant. While skills/historical precedents limited this option in the near term, the organizational structure was developed to facilitate this transition at a later time. The requirements of change have now been identified. The results of the modernization and how much has to be accomplished have been sent forth. The next step is to develop the plan. 3. DEVELOPING HUMAN-SIDE TRANSITION PLAN The world is full of good ideas that die for lack of execution. The previous section describes how to develop the options for change. The following sections address how to successfully implement those options. 3.1 Profiling the Impacted Organization With the future and current organizational states defined, the project requirements clearly specified, and the external environment and politics reasonably understood, development of the transition plan can now proceed. The first step for the Transition Manager in this process is to acquire a sense for the collective personalities of the organizations which will be undergoing the change. An understanding of their history and cultural diversity is also critical. What will be the likely response to the project? How will participants feel about the changes they are about to undergo? What will they fear or resent the most, which will they most favorably anticipate?

An effective first step to this data gathering is to conduct interviews with line managers and senior paraprofessionals. Typically a good overall perspective will be received during these discussions regarding managements perceptions of potential stress points. An equally important follow-up step is to conduct informal, small group sessions with operators and foremen, on their turf (control rooms/ field offices). Typically, by the time a Transition Manager has been assigned, rumors are already floating, so the use of good open ended questions such as What have you heard about? or How do you feel about? will provide invaluable data for transition planning. In both management and field level interviews, the following information should be directly or indirectly solicited as appropriate: o How has the organization dealt with change in the past, i.e., prior job eliminations, organizational realignments, introduction of new technology and process revisions? o How do departments and key individuals within the impacted organization work together? o What is the degree of commitment that managers and key paraprofessionals have to the project, and how willing are they to provide some of their resources to help with training and related transition activities? o What is the state of operator and foreman proficiency as perceived at all levels? An audit of training records and related materials will be especially helpful. o Is operating and technical documentation up to date? Is management of change protocols operative? o What is the state of credibility between management and the field? (The Transition Manager will be accorded no more and initially less than the minimum by the field). o What are the key concerns across the board about the project? o What elements of the project will be perceived as a positive, i.e., new control room, better communication tools, improved field labs, etc.? o What opportunities exist for employee involvement in view of special interests/concerns? o Who are the key opinion leaders and what is the shadow organization? This information is critical in developing subsequent communication strategy. o What role will the union play? How credible are the local stewards? How has the union been dealt with most effectively in the past? o If given a free drop, who would the Transition Manager select from the run-and-maintain organization to be on the transition team?

The final steps in the profiling process are assimilation and calibration. Appropriate time for reflection on these data is critical. Frequently, impressions received from the field will contradict perceptions of management and vice versa. Perception differences should be reconciled by subsequent interviews. The Transition manager should then calibrate his/her final impressions and conclusions with the management team of the impacted organization. 3.2 Planning Premises Prior to developing the details of the transition plan, several premises need to be set in recognition of the organizational profiling noted above and external constraints. An important perspective to adopt for modernization projects is that the organizational transition plan has parity with the engineering/construction schedule. Typically, the schedule for modernization projects has been tentatively established based on timing for equipment delivery, engineering design, and construction. While the Transition Manager should obviously be sensitive to these projects is the preparation of the impacted personnel to accept the many changes which are about to come their way. A people plan should be developed which reflects the special needs identified in the profiling process. The Transition manager should be prepared to advocate a reasonable merging of the transition and construction schedule and should proceed with developing an plan on the basis that such a merger can be accommodated. A significant impediment to successful implementation of modernization projects is the inability of operating departments to provide personnel for involvement in critical transition activities. Comprehensive modernization project frequently involve extensive operator training, significant revision to operating procedures, and field support to construction and design activities. A realistic assessment of the interim need for increased operating staff should be made. This extra staff can be made available from a pool of vacation/ training relief operators and higher overtime. Validating the need for and procuring this staff can be a major challenge for the Transition Manager. The extra personnel required for training is the key transition cost for a modernization activity. A cornerstone to any transition plan is the degree of operator and foreman participation that will be utilized in its development and implementation. Clearly, the degree of acceptance is positively influenced by the amount of involvement by impacted personnel. With a typical modernization project, the available personnel from the run-and-maintain organization is very limited, so careful selection of areas for involvement is essential. Selection of those activities which have greatest operator impact and which operators can make the greatest contribution are clear candidates. Suggested activities are:

o Information system configuration- i.e., layout of DCS displays and graphics o Development and delivery of training material o Layout of control rooms o Revisions to operating and procedure manuals o Participation and involvement in planning of hot cutovers (switching for pneumatic to electronic controls, one loop at a time, while operations are in progress) Other key considerations in planning the participation effort are the relative maturity of the work force, acceptability to plant management, and realistic timing constraints. The key elements of the communication plan should be identified. Based on initial interviews in the data gathering phase, a pattern should surface regarding the most effective combination of techniques formal and/or informal written announcements, mini meetings on a shift basis, larger group presentations with view graphs and handouts, electronic mail. Who should be involved in developing the meeting agenda? Who should present the information? Groundwork for a reasonably supportive or at least non-aggressive stance from the union should be established early in the project. This stage can be set via a range of activities, from detailed involvement during the concept development stage to mini, informal meetings on a periodic basis for information and issue resolution. At a minimum, keeping the local workmens committee or their designates advised in advance of potential trouble spots should be assured. Finally, an inventory of significant activities not directly related to the project should be made. Parallel initiatives such as implementation of SPC, preparation for compliance with ISO 9000, renegotiation of a labor contract, a major turnaround, and process/equipment modifications could impact the timing and smoothness of the modernization project, and, importantly, compete for operating resources. In some cases, these events are complementary. A turnaround may be required prior to the hot cutover to implement operability projects to support reduced staffing, ISO 9000 changes and documentation/ training systems upgrades. All of these activities need to be overlaid with the modernization project and resource priorities set in advance. 3.3 Components of the Transition Plan The following major components for a transition plan are based on the authors experience with a plant modernization project which involved an upgrade of pneumatic instruments to DCS (Honeywell LCN), transition from unit operators who had combined inside and outside duties to a team of operators with either outside (field) or inside (control) duties, and movement to a consolidated control room from individual unit control rooms. The components include training, documentation, and organizational realignment.

The most important element of the human side transition plan for control modernization project is operator and foreman training (Figure 3). A well designed and presented training plan will build confidence of the participants and assure a smooth cutover to the new control technology. A comprehensive training plan will serve as irrefutable evidence of managements commitment to support the field throughout the transition and beyond. The elements of the training plan for the case noted above were:

o Needs/Tasks Analysis: In the data gathering phase of the project, a need to upgrade training on unit processes and related tasks was indicated. To address this concern with the perspective of the organizational revisions to be undertaken, a form of task analysis was undertaken. Teams of operators and foremen from the impacted units were formed with the task of identifying all duties of each existing operating job. The future state organizational concepts were then overlaid, and the process knowledge and skills required to execute those duties were assessed. This prioritized list or knowledge and skills became the data bank for developing the training program. o Process Troubleshooting/Diagnostic Skills: Experience has indicated that upgrading diagnostic skills is important in converting to electronic systems. Although electronic information systems are designed to be more user friendly, they do require a significant paradigm shift on the part of most operators and foremen. Two approaches were utilized. A three-day course on generic process troubleshooting skills was presented by a training consultant. Additionally, operators and foremen were required to fly the process for approximately 24 hours on a unit specific simulator through a series of upsets, start-ups and shutdowns. o Cross Training: Existing departmental cross training plans were accelerated to assure that operators were qualified and proficient on all existing jobs were modified by the project, the basic process knowledge and skills requirements were unchanged. The control/field operator mode to be introduced required that operators assigned to a unit/operating module have a working knowledge of that entire unit versus a sub-set of same. o Process Refresher/Changes Training: This training module, which lasted four days, was designed to address some of the training needs identified in the needs/task analysis. It presented an overview of the process from the perspective of a control operator and reinforced those specific skills which the incumbents identified as potential weak areas. Process control changes introduced by the modernization project were also covered. Where possible, training material utilized displays as depicted on new DCS information systems. o DCS Training: Training on DCS proceeded in three phases. Approximately two days were dedicated to a general introduction to system technology: general system description, terminology, group displays, schematics, keyboard functions, printouts, equipment alarms, etc. This module was then followed by a three day course on the specifics of the information/control system for each unit. Items such as unit configuration and button strategy, practice on call up and moving through various displays, and response to system alarms were provided. The final system training offered just prior to actual cutover was the three day intensive exposure to a unit specific simulator noted above. LCN hardware identical to that installed with the project was used in the simulator.

Training effectiveness and operator confidence were significantly enhanced via the simulator. Emergency Responses: Movement to the new field organization significantly impacts operator-to-operator communications and emergency response actions. The latter subject was addressed via rewrite and training on key emergency procedures for events such as power and steam failures. Each newly constituted shift of operators then conducted red tag field drills on these procedures. The red tag drills required the operators to tag the equipment they would operate during the postulated upset. Instructions and practice on radio discipline were provided. The complications which arise during emergencies due to improper radio communications between inside/outside operators should not be ignored. Organizational and Personal Dynamics: At the outset of transition implementation, a one day course on stress management was provided to all impacted field personnel. The objective was to reduce, as much as possible, the personal concern which is associated with modernization projects. Also, it is useful to provide control operators tools to deal with the tension and boredom (series vs. parallel states) of their jobs. Mini workshops were conducted with the reconstituted operator/foremen teams to discuss such topics as protocols for consolidated control rooms and dynamics between the control and field operators. Training Resources: The bulk of the training was developed and delivered by a team of operators and foremen involved in the transition. Each training team member attended a five day Train the Trainer course at the outset. This training was an invaluable first step. Utilizing incumbent operating staff assured that training was user friendly and facilitated the learning process. At appropriate phases of material development, training instruction was provided by technical staff from the project and plant. The technical staff also provided a critical technical assurance role throughout the training process. Qualification Criteria: Any training associated with project-introduced changes, such as process and control revisions and TDC/LCN technology, required that operators and foremen pass a battery of written tests and demonstrate certain skills on the LCN system.

While beyond the scope of this paper, training of technical support and maintenance staff is an important plant-side activity. Development of the support strategy is a key precursor to training at a location where a new control technology is being introduced. This technology may require a new classification of craftsmen, special amendments to existing labor contracts, etc. Significant lead time could be required to set the support strategy. An activity which parallels training is updating documentation. Extensive, acrossthe-board technical documentation is clearly an integral part of a modernization project. Parallel revisions to operating documentation are equally important.

In the case cited above, the project presented an opportunity to update existing operating documentation and rearrange material in a more useful fashion. Material was revised for insertion in one of two manuals: operating or procedures. The operating manual presented the process background, described the systems, discussed the whys. The procedures manual presented detailed instructions on the how and what to do. Familiarity with the latter manual presumed knowledge gained from the former. Where possible, the procedures were written to reflect the tandem steps of the control and field operators. This approach was especially important in revising emergency procedures. In this case, a spreadsheet which depicted parallel steps of field and control operators was especially useful. The spreadsheet format facilitated a realistic assessment of minimum staffing needs to contain emergencies and was an invaluable training aid in conducting field drills. As with training, operating documentation was developed by a team of operators and foremen with technical assurance provided by plant and project technical staff. Configuration of the information system, i.e., layout of the process schematics and eight point configurations for the DCS screens, provided an early and productive opportunity for field involvement. Our experience indicates that an operators view of the process can be a correct but sometimes different perspective than that of an engineer. Therefore, active involvement of the operators in this activity assures a more user friendly information system and reduces the need for subsequent revision. Most importantly, the use of operators in this activity secures their visibility in the fabric of the project. In our case, the information system was laid out by a mini team of operators and foremen from each unit under the direction of an information system engineer from the project and with technical review by the units process engineers. Prior to initiating the design, these field teams received five days training which included an orientation on information systems from a human factors perspective, instruction on company design standards, and workshops with operators from other units who had prior experience with designing TDC/LCN displays. Design of the realigned field organization is obviously a critical task and a sensitive task. The following five step process was followed with positive results (Figure 4).

1. Overall Concept: A plan management team set the overall concepts which included the target organization, conversion to mini teams of inside and outside operators, and movement to a consolidated control room. 2. Detailed Loading Assessment: Given the organization concept, a human factors consultant was retained to assess current and proposed operator

loading. This assessment included time and motion studies of existing duties, projections from these studies to proposed duties, personnel interviews, and reviews of key operating and emergency procedures. The resulting loading analysis was compared to industry averages and managements targets. 3. Plan Validation: A final review of the target organization was made by management and adjusted as indicated by the loading analysis. 4. Detailed Alignment of Duties: A team foreman with significant input from operators then developed a detailed plan for operator duties within the constraints of the target organization and concepts. This plan was reviewed by management and implemented. 5. Final Adjustment: Approximately two months after cutover and implementation of the new organization, a team of operators met to review their collective experiences and suggest some minor realignments of duties. Their suggestions were implemented. Once plans for training, documentation, and organization realignment were set, a process/organization to support the project organization in the field was established. Cutover support is especially crucial. 3.4 Transition Plan Approval Once the main components of the transition plan are established, quantification of the requisite resources and time is straightforward. Selling the program, however, can be a significant challenge. A few things to keep in mind are: o Training is the greatest resource draw and will be a significant factor in operator acceptance of and proficiency with the new technology and organizational mode. Make training your first priority. o Apply a reasonable contingency factor to your manpower projections. During implementation, your needs will normally be greater than envisioned. o Invariably, your time and cost projections will be a surprise to your client base. The human-side transition will cost 10-20% of the AFE budget. Make a careful assessment of nice to vs. have to components of your plan. The calibration step with your client, which as mentioned as a final step in the profiling process, will be a good tie to your resource presentation. Integration of the project time line (design and construction) with the plant-side transition plan will have to be addressed. Obviously, parity of both the plants and the projects needs is a key premise to the negotiations which will invariably follow.

4. IMPLEMENTATION Carrying out the human-side transition plan requires three essential activities. The first is ongoing management commitment and guidance. The second is involvement of the operators and communication on the plans progress. Finally, an independent check on the plan is needed to ensure no items have fallen through the cracks. 4.1 Transition Management Organization Management of the transition should involve appropriate representation of all personnel impacted. A three tiered approach has been found to be very effective (Figure 5):

o Senior Level Steering Team: This team represents the senior management of the project and plant organizations involved in the overall effort. This team approves the overall scope of the project, sets resource strategy, and is the final recourse on conflict resolution. It may meet regularly during the concept development stages of the project. If progress is satisfactory, this team should have little involvement in actual implementation details. Once the project is initiated, the frequency of its meetings can be reduced significantly. o Plant Resource Team: This team is comprised of the operating and technical managers directly involved in the plant phase of the project. Their organizations provide the staff to manage and implement the transition. In addition to providing resources, this team participates in organization planning, assures the overall effectiveness of the transition process, and is ultimately responsible for the efficient assimilation of the project by the runand-maintain organization. The Transition Manager should simultaneously lead this team and also treat the team as his/her customer the product being a smooth transition. o Transition Teams: Several mini groups of operators, foremen and technical personnel should be formed to focus on the key individual activities: training, documentation, configuration, and construction liaison/cutover. The bulk of the transition implementation is carried on by these teams. The Transition Manager is the key link among all members of the transition organization. 4.2 Involvement and Communication Strategy Following the team protocol as recommended above will set a firm foundation for field acceptance and readiness. Selecting members for the operator teams is critical. The mature operators with good cognitive and communication skills are generally the best for these assignments. You will be exposing them to activities which are foreign to their normal thought processes. They will be your key informal communication link to the rest of the field, your chief sales people. A word of caution: having selected your key contributors, guard against the perception in the eyes of the other operators that the team members are the exclusive owners of the transition plan. Encourage the team members to maintain their field presence and informally solicit input and feedback from their peers. Develop a communication strategy early in the implementation stage. Use a variety of media: structured presentations which discuss important details, informal small group sessions such as shift meetings, the use of a transition

newsletter, field presence/ready availability of the Transition Manager. Two communication techniques have been fond to be especially useful. At the outset of the project, have presentations by operators from other units who are using the new technology or organizational concepts. While the risk of less than overwhelming endorsement is obvious, an operator-to-operator exchange of the pros and cons will go a long way in dispelling unfounded rumors and fears. Additionally, arranging for such an exchange will significantly enhance the Transition Managers credibility. Another technique especially useful at later stages in the transition is to hold workshops with field personnel who are not directly involved on a team. At these workshops solicit concerns and questions which then become the subject of future communication sessions. At times the concerns of the non-involved operators are different from the involved operators. 4.3 Readiness Audit Typically, the most critical phase of the transition is the cutover phase when the operators move to the new facilities, begin operation from a new control platform, and adapt to a new organization mode. An independent assessment of the organizations readiness should be made one to two months prior to cutover. This audit should be staffed by personnel experienced in modernization projects and who have not been connected with the project to be audited. Suggested audit points are management systems, operator and foremen preparedness, training of maintenance support staff, and cutover procedures. 4.4 Cutover Our project involved hot cutover (loop by loop while running) to the DCS. Operating personnel who were involved in the information system design developed the detailed cutover scenario in cooperation with the project team. These operators, along with the operators who were trainers on the simulator and changes modules training, became the key operators during actual cutover. The confidence and leadership which they projected to the run-and-maintain operators significantly facilitated the cutover process. 5. ASSIMILATION BY RUN-AND-MAINTAIN After cutover is complete, a mini-transition to the run-and-maintain organization must be accomplished. The base plant supervisory and management personnel have been primarily focused on keeping routine operations underway as the transition team focused on the future state. Now that the future state has arrived, the transition team is dissolved and its members are phased back to their original jobs. The culture changes and new operating practices introduced need to be aggressively reinforced for some time. If pressure for maintenance of new norms is not maintained, the possibility for reverting to former practices is ever present.

A process for fine tuning organizational and technological design should be put in place immediately following cutover. An operative revision process will assure long term support for the transition just accomplished and will be a positive atmosphere for future changes in the work place. Finally, after six months to a year, a post transition review should be conducted. The objective of this review is a cost effectiveness assessment of the transition plan. 6. CONCLUSION Re-instrumentation alone will modernize a plants instruments, but it can be used as an instrument of change to modernize a plants total operation. The new technology, the DCS, creates a momentum of change that can be harnessed to multiply the benefits of DCS. Tapping into the momentum of change requires that management have a vision for desired change. All facets of plant operation, from management structure to operator tasks, should be examined for possible restructuring. The restructuring should build upon current strengths and eliminate existing weaknesses in plant operation. Achieving the vision of the future requires a plan. The plan for transition of the humanside of plant operation needs to be consistent with the project plan for transition of plant hardware. Key components of the plan include training, documentation, and organization realignment. Implementation of the plan is a vital and often overlooked step. The transition organization must have the right mix of individuals and provide a high level of communication/involvement with the operators. Staying with the plan through cutover and transition to the run-and-maintain organization is critical.

BIOGRAPHIES Frederick (Ted) L. Coonan is in Transition Management for Shell Oil Company. He has just completed management of a re-instrumentation and consolidation of a set of resins processing units. Prior to the resins modernization, Mr. Coonan was field team manager for modernization of a lubricants plant and of an alkylation plant. He has handson experience in consolidation of control centers, switching to dedicated board operators, and realignment of both operations and supervisory personnel. Mr. Coonan has over twenty years experience in plant operations with Shell, managing operations for refinery, agricultural chemical, olefin, plastics fabrication, animal health drugs, and lubricant plants. He received both a Masters and Bachelors degree in mechanical engineering from the University of Notre Dame. David A. Strobhar is principal engineer for Beville Engineering, Inc. He has been involved in human factors analysis and design of oil refineries for the past nine years. Mr. Strobhar specializes in the effects of modernizations on operator performance, having conducted studies for Shell, Chevron, British Petroleum, Texaco, and Air Products & Chemicals. Previously, he was the first human factors engineer for GPU Nuclear, following the accident at GPUs Three Mile Island Nuclear Station. Mr. Strobhar has a B.S. degree in human factors engineering from Wright State University and is an associate member of the Human Factors Society.