Demystifying Engineering Projects Part 1: Don’t Skip the Phases

TÜV Rheinland has seen an increase in engineering capital projects which aim to move quickly through, or even skip, project stages. Steven King warns that this risks delays, cost implications and, ultimately, companies not hitting their net zero targets

AS WE move towards a net zero future, we are seeing an increase in the quantity and complexity of engineering capital projects across all industries. Particularly centred on the UK’s Industrial Decarbonisation Clusters, these types of project involve a consortium of many different stakeholders from various sectors, adding to the complexity. Ensuring these projects are executed on time and to budget will be a key driver to achieving our net zero targets.

However, at TÜV Rheinland we have seen an increase in the number of engineering projects which aim to move quickly through, or even skip, project stages. This is invariably driven by project cost and time pressures.

In the first in a series of four articles demystifying engineering projects, I will explore the implications of not executing each stage effectively. I will also delve into the criticality of safety and risk assessments at each stage.

What are the project phases?

Different industries and different companies within the same industry will have different definitions of project phases. Regardless of the wording, the aims of the phases remain consistent: to systematically plan, design, and execute projects in stages to enhance decision-making, minimise risks, and improve the likelihood of project success.

Based on TÜV Rheinland’s experience with our customers across many industries, the most common phases are as follows:

FEASIBILITY
A feasibility study is an assessment of project viability, both technically and financially. This stage involves investigating various engineering options to arrive at the best available solution. It should provide key stakeholders with the tools to decide whether the project should proceed to the next stage. These decisions will be based on, but not limited to, cost, chosen technology, engineering complexity, risk assessment, regulatory and environmental considerations, operational feasibility, and market analysis.

PRE-FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN (PRE-FEED)
A pre-FEED study provides a greater degree of definition to a project, following agreement of project feasibility. This stage further develops the project scope, refines cost estimates, and identifies potential risks and challenges.

During pre-FEED a more detailed level of engineering is conducted compared to the feasibility phase. The outcome of a pre-FEED study is a defined project plan that provides the foundation for the subsequent FEED phase. It should ensure that key project parameters are well-defined, and stakeholders are informed for key decision-making.

A useful tool to be used at this stage is the Process Definition Rating Index (PDRI). This ensures all critical project scope elements are thoroughly defined, minimising uncertainties and potential risks. This proactive approach enhances project planning accuracy, reduces the likelihood of cost overruns, and helps secure stakeholder confidence by demonstrating a well-prepared project foundation.

Some readers may be more familiar with the Front End Loading “FEL” definitions for project phases. This will be explored further in subsequent articles.

FRONT END ENGINEERING DESIGN (FEED)
The Front End Engineering Design phase of the project, sometimes called Basic Engineering, is the most critical stage for effective execution of an engineering capital project. It is a multi-discipline stage and should take the design concept and upfront work conducted in pre-FEED and transform it into a practical engineering system. The FEED stage should also significantly refine the cost estimate for the project.

FEED studies should provide the bedrock on which to finalise the plant design. A thoroughly planned and meticulously executed FEED package provides project owners and investors with the confidence to commit the necessary capital for the project’s advancement.

DETAILED DESIGN
Following FEED, detailed design takes the conceptual and preliminary designs from the FEED phase and transforms them into executable plans. It includes finalising layouts, selecting materials, specifying equipment, reviewing vendor packages, controlling/managing design changes, and preparing detailed construction drawings and documents. The objective of the detailed design phase is to provide a complete set of instructions and documentation that contractors can use to build and commission the project accurately and efficiently.

The efficiency of this phase hinges on the quality of the FEED study that precedes it.

CONSTRUCTION & COMMISSIONING
The construction and commissioning phase is the stage of a project where the detailed designs and plans developed in the previous phases are executed to build the physical structures and systems. This phase involves procurement of materials, mobilisation of construction teams, and the systematic testing and validation of systems to prepare the project for operational use. Procurement of long-lead items may start during FEED.

Commissioning activities ensure that all systems are installed correctly, are in accordance with project documentation, relevant standards, tested, and ready for operation according to the project specifications. 

What can go wrong?

It is increasingly common to see projects which, consciously or unconsciously, try to accelerate through early project phases too quickly or skip a stage entirely. The most common is moving from feasibility/pre-FEED direct to detailed design, skipping FEED. This can have a devastating impact on the project. Key implications include:

PROJECT DELAYS
Often, the key justification for skipping a phase is project timelines. This is a counter-intuitive argument as doing so will invariably lead to project delays. This could be due to an incomplete design requiring rework or an inaccurate cost estimate. A delay to a project will often lead to the next issue…

SPIRALLING COST
There are many causes for cost increase on a project above the project estimates. This could arise from financial penalties for not achieving deadlines. It could also result from having to redesign the system with extra equipment items or more exotic metallurgy. Executing each project phase meticulously can help to prevent surprise changes, which are harder to fix the later they are realised.

COMPROMISING SAFETY
Identification of hazards and implementation of safeguards should start at the earliest stage of any project. This should be developed through the phases as the design matures, utilising various risk assessment methodologies. If the right process is not followed the risk of missing a hazard increases. If you do not conduct the right level of risk assessment or hazard study at each project phase the consequences could be catastrophic. Often, the hazard is so engrained in the design that it is not identified. It is much easier to make modifications to a design at FEED stage and earlier than in detailed design. Making modifications to the design at detailed design comes with its own risks and can introduce new unrevealed hazards.

Many of our clients face increasing pressure to accelerate their projects, but this must not come at the expense of safety and good engineering practice. As process engineers, we have a responsibility to ensure our designs are not only efficient and cost-effective but also fundamentally safe, reliable, and aligned with industry standards to protect both people and the environment. This can be achieved by following a rigorous project execution strategy.
To help engineers effectively plan and execute their project, I will be looking in more detail at each of the key phases in coming editions of TCE.