CII Piping

Tools
for Enhancing the Piping Engineering Process
Construction Industry Institute

Implementation Resource 47-2
The University of Texas at Austin
3208 Red River, Suite 300
Austin, Texas 78705-2650
Not printed with state funds

Tools for Enhancing the Piping Engineering Process
Prepared by the
Piping Function Research Team
Implementation Resource 47-2
January 1997
Reviewed by CII 23Jun04

© 1997 Construction Industry Institute™.
The University of Texas at Austin.
CII members may reproduce and distribute this work internally in any medium at no cost to internal recipients.
CII members are permitted to revise and adapt this work for the internal use provided an informational copy is
furnished to CII.
Available to non-members by purchase; however, no copies may be made or distributed and no modifications
made without prior written permission from CII. Contact CII at http://construction-institute.org/catalog.htm to
purchase copies. Volume discounts may be available.
All CII members, current students, and faculty at a college or university are eligible to purchase CII products at
member prices. Faculty and students at a college or university may reproduce and distribute this work without
modification for educational use.
Printed in the United States of America.

Contents
Executive Summary ............................................................................................. v
List of Figures .................................................................................................... vii
List of Tables ...................................................................................................... ix
Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2: Tools for Enhancing the P&ID Development Process ..................... 7
Chapter 3: Tools for Enhancing the Supplier Data Process ............................. 41
Chapter 4: Tools for Enhancing the Packaged Units Process .......................... 55
Chapter 5: Conclusions ..................................................................................... 65
References .......................................................................................................... 69
77
Executive Summary
The piping function is frequently inefficient. Previous research indicates that

potential savings from improving the piping function are about $3.8 million for
an average heavy industrial project costing $190 million. The CII Piping Function
Research Team involved more than 100 industry experts to identify drivers of
these problematic processes, to collect best practices, and to develop solution tools
for improving piping function efficiency.
The major causes for this inefficiency pertain to engineering development

processes for (1) piping and instrumentation diagrams (P&IDs), (2) supplier data,
and (3) packaged units. Research indicates that three drivers of P&ID problems
are inefficient sequencing and prioritization, inefficient procedures for P&ID
development and review, and inefficient communication of P&ID uncertainty. In
the supplier data process, communication, coordination and selection duration
are three major problems. For packaged units, supplier quality issues and design
issues are major areas influencing piping function efficiency.
Several tools have been developed by the CII Piping Function Research Team
to improve the efficiency of the piping function. These tools, categorized into
policies, procedures, checklists, and roles, are described in this publication.
v
79
List of Figures
Figure 1.1: Flowchart for Industry Plant Engineering and Construction ........ 2
Figure 2.1: Tool #1-A: Procedure — Integrated Flowchart for P&ID
Development ................................................................................. 10
Figure 2.2: Tool #1-C: Procedure — The Process for Using the Integrated
P&ID Development Flowchart ..................................................... 13
Figure 2.3: Comparison of Project Effort Input for 1980s and 1990s .......... 15
Figure 2.4: An Example of a Traditional “Hold” on a P&ID ....................... 36
Figure 2.5: Tool #8-A: Procedure — Example of a Hold With Notes .......... 39
Figure 2.6: Tool #8-B: Procedure — Example of a Hold With an
Action Code .................................................................................. 40
Figure 3.1: Tool #9-A: Procedure — Supplier Data Request Form ............... 43
Figure 3.2: Tool #9-B: Procedure — Commentary on Supplier Data
Request Form ................................................................................ 44
Figure 3.3: Tool #10: Procedure — Supplier Data Coordination Meetings .. 49
Figure 3.4: Tool #11-A: Procedure — Supplier Pre-Qualification Procedure 52
Figure 3.5: Tool #11-B: Procedure — Commentary on Supplier Pre-Qualification
Procedure ...................................................................................... 53
Figure 4.1: Tool #12-A: Procedure — Packaged Unit Supplier Pre-Qualification
....................................................................................................... 56
Figure 4.2: Tool #12-B: Procedure — Commentary on Packaged Unit
Supplier Pre-Qualification ............................................................ 57
Figure 4.3: Tool #13: Procedure — Customization/ Specification Meeting .. 59
Figure 4.4: Tool #14: Procedure — Pre-Award Meeting with Packaged

Unit................................................................................................ 61
vii
81
List of Tables
Table 1.1: Research Scope Definition .............................................................. 4

Table 2.1: Tool #1-B: Procedure — Information and Decisions Needed for Each
P&ID Development Stage ............................................................. 12
Table 2.2: Tool #2-A: Policy — Formation of the Owner Project Team for Early
Input .............................................................................................. 16
Table 2.3: Tool #2-B: Policy — Tactics for Overcoming Barriers to Owner
Project Team Formation ............................................................... 17
Table 2.4: Tool #3: Policy — List of Needed Pre-P&ID Information and
Providers ....................................................................................... 20
Table 2.5: Tool #4: Policy — P&ID Standardization for Piping Function .. 21
Table 2.6: Tool #5: Checklist — P&ID Development Technical Review Checklist
....................................................................................................... 23
Table 2.7: Tool #6: Procedure — Responsibility Assignment Chart for P&ID
Development ................................................................................. 31
Table 2.8: Tool #7: Policy — Strategies for Avoiding Artificially Frozen P&IDs
....................................................................................................... 34
Table 2.9: Level of Certainty of a “Hold” and Suggested Actions ............... 40
Table 4.1: Tool #15: New Role — Packaged Units Coordinators ............... 63
Table 5.1: Summary Listing of Solution Tools for Inefficient Piping Function
....................................................................................................... 66
ix
83
Chapter 1
Introduction
Since the early 1980s the construction industry has realized that the piping
function is the most costly and least efficient function within industrial projects.
The Business Roundtable has estimated that the potential savings from improving
the piping function are about $3.8 million for an average heavy industrial project
costing $190 million.
Previous research found that solving problems at the early stage of a project
can often be the most cost-effective approach for projects. However, enhancing
the engineering development processes of P&IDs, supplier data, and packaged
units in order to improve the piping function has largely been ignored.
In 1993, the Construction Industry Institute chartered the Piping Function

Research Team (RT #47, also called “the research team” in this publication). The
research team identified 14 problematic areas in the industrial project piping
function and determined that the two most desirable areas for research were P&ID
rework and design document rework from late supplier data and packaged units.
The research team reached consensus on two issues: first, too many uncertainties
in the piping process are the key factor in the inefficiency of the piping function;
and second, the piping function can be greatly enhanced by minimizing uncertainties
during the engineering development processes of the P&IDs, supplier data, and
packaged units.
Major Problems in Piping Functions
This section briefly discusses the three areas of uncertainty in the piping
function.
Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams
P&IDs are schematic drawings showing the arrangement of all process and
utility equipment, piping, and instrumentation. P&IDs are an extension of process
flow diagrams (PFDs) and are used as the basis for detailed engineering design.
P&IDs evolve with the development of a project; a finished P&ID carries complete
information for all equipment, piping, process control, and instrumentation, and
the interrelationships these elements have. P&IDs play a significant role in process
1
Chapter 1: Introduction
piping design, construction, and start-up. Figure 1.1 is a flowchart depicting the
role of P&IDs in industrial plant engineering and construction. The research team
determined that artificially frozen P&IDs and late P&ID changes are key symptoms
of the inefficient P&ID development process.
Block Flow Process Flow Detailed Procurement

P&IDs
Diagram Diagrams Design & Fabrication
(by System)
(by Unit) (by Systems)
Plot Plan, ISOs Pipe Spools
Construction Punch Out Commissioning Operations/

(by Unit) Check Out of Systems Maintenance
Start-Up
Figure 1.1. Flowchart for Industrial Plant Engineering and Construction
P&ID is an acronym for the following technical terms: Piping and

Instrumentation Diagram (Drawing), Piping and Instrument Diagram, or Process
and Instrument Diagram. Sometimes, P&IDs are referred to as Engineering Flow
Diagrams (EFDs), Engineering Line Diagrams (ELDs), Flow Sheets, or Mechanical
Flow Diagrams (MFDs).
Supplier Data
Supplier data are major information sources for design documents (P&IDs and
isometrics). Unfortunately, supplier documents are often missing, late, or contain
inaccurate information when needed to support accelerated engineering design
programs. This causes non-certified (uncertain) data to be incorporated into the
design documents, which are then sent downstream into the process. Associated
delays and uncertainties affect the piping function in the following ways:
• Re-design of piping interfaces and/or transitions
• Misfabrication of pipe spools
• Rework of pipe spools at the fabrication shop
• On-line piping rework and on-site piping rerouting.
2
Packaged Units
A packaged unit is a self-contained system consisting of various pieces of

equipment that are piped and/or wired together, supported on a common base (or
bases), and designed, fabricated, and furnished by a specialty supplier from a
remote site. Sometimes called skid-mounted units, these are smaller than units
fabricated for an entirely modular approach to plant construction.
Similar to supplier data, packaged units can become a source of delays and
uncertainties for the design effort. In addition to design issues, however, packaged
units present problems for on-site installation since they frequently cause piping
rework and/or rerouting.
Research Objectives and Scope
Table 1.1 shows the scope of this study. Industrial projects, excluding
commercial piping (plumbing), located in the U.S. were the major sources for this
investigation. The organizations involved in the research were CII owner companies
and CII contractor companies.
Table 1.1. Research Scope Definition
Research Scope
Type of Projects Industrial Projects:

• Petrochemical Plants
• Chemical Plants
• Petroleum Plants
• Gas Treatment Plants
• Offshore Oil Well Platforms
• Offshore Gas Well Platforms
Nature of Projects • New Projects

• Expansion Projects
• Remodel Projects
Location of Projects U.S.
3
Types of Tools
The tools for enhancing the piping engineering development processes are
categorized and explained as follows:
Policy:
• A high-level overall plan embracing general goals and acceptable procedures.
• A predetermined course of action established as a guide toward accepted

business strategies and objectives. The policy reflects an overall organizational
attitude; it provides a long-range guide for action. An established policy sets
limits which management is expected to follow. A policy does not tell a
person exactly what to do, but does point out the direction to go.
• A policy reflects an overall organizational purpose and provides a long-range

strategy for action.
Procedure:
• A particular way of accomplishing something or of acting.
• A series of steps followed in a regular definite order.
• A series of instructions for a computer that has a name by which it can be

called into action.
• The means by which a policy can be accomplished. The procedure lays out
the steps usually followed in performing a recurring type of work. A
procedure establishes uniform methods for routine or repetitive matters.
• A procedure lays out a serious of steps or instructions for performing a

recurring type of activity.
Checklist:
• A complete list of necessary and/or desirable items with which engineers
perform a scrutinized cross-check in an effort to ensure these items are
properly addressed.
• A checklist presents desirable items and allows engineers to check their

documents to ensure accuracy and completeness.
4
Role:
• Function; a socially expected behavior pattern usually determined by an
individual’s status.
• A norm that goes with a position or occupation. Roles and role pairs govern
the behavior of the person holding the position.
• A role is a functional position created in an organization to perform a

particular task.
5
Chapter 2
Tools for Enhancing the P&ID Development Process
Drivers and Causes of Inefficient P&ID Development Process
Research found that late P&ID changes are primarily the result of “artificially
frozen” P&IDs. Artificially frozen P&IDs are those containing information
elements that have not been finalized. Three key drivers that lead to artificially
frozen P&IDs and late P&ID changes are:
• Lack of sequencing and prioritization in the P&ID development process.
• Inefficient P&ID development procedures and review checklists.
• Inefficient communication of P&ID uncertainty.
Inefficient Sequencing and Prioritization in the P&ID Development Process —

Need for Tools
Lack of sequencing and prioritization is the primary driver that leads to

artificially frozen P&IDs and to late P&ID changes. The research team found that
the causes for this include: (1) missing necessary activities in the P&ID development
process, (2) lack of a graphical flowchart, (3) vague design contract terms, and (4)
less than optimal project management priorities.
When P&ID development activities are not properly sequenced and prioritized,
projects can suffer from the following negative effects:
• Lack of timely input from multi-discipline, operations, maintenance, safety,

construction, and supplier groups
• Lack of coordination both within and outside the project team
• Incomplete or untimely P&ID reviews
• Incomplete, or uncoordinated P&IDs
• Numerous “holds” on P&IDs
• Artificially frozen P&IDs
• Late P&ID changes.
7
Chapter 2: Tools for Enhancing the P&ID Development Process
Tools for Improving Sequencing and Prioritization
In order to sequence and prioritize P&ID development activities effectively,

the following information is needed: (1) a detailed breakdown of the P&ID
development activities for each P&ID development stage; (2) a flowchart depicting
the relationships between these activities; and (3) a paradigm change to recognize
the need for more pre-project planning.
Several tools were developed to address these needs. They should be

implemented in parallel:
• Tool #1-A: Procedure — Integrated Flowchart for P&ID development

process
• Tool #1-B: Procedure — Information and Decisions for P&ID Development

Stages
• Tool #1-C: Procedure — Use of the Integrated P&ID Development Flowchart
• Tool #2-A: Policy — Owner Project Team Formation for Early Input
• Tool #2-B: Policy — Tactics for Overcoming Barriers to Owner Project

Team Formation
Tool #1-A: Procedure — Integrated P&ID Development Flowchart
An integrated P&ID development flowchart (Figure 2.1) was developed by

the research team in an effort to curtail uncertainty that persists in unstructured
approaches to P&ID development. It is intended to improve the sequencing and
prioritization of P&ID activities. This flowchart was initially based upon an
owner company’s descriptive P&ID development guidelines, and then was
continuously refined as additional inputs were solicited. The final version is
shown in Figure 2.1. This figure integrated the research team’s input and several
companies’ P&ID development guidelines/flowcharts. It also was validated by
industry experts in terms of positive impacts on projects and ease of implementation.
Tool #1-A should be used in conjunction with Tools #1-B and #1-C.
8
The Integrated P&ID Development Flowchart provides the following functions:
• identifies the activities needed in the P&ID development process

(concentrating on proper prioritizing and sequencing)
• illustrates the interrelationships between various activities
• facilitates reaching an agreement between project participants on the steps

of the development process
• provides a basis for comparison with existing P&ID development flowcharts,

so as to identify opportunities for improvement
• serves as a training aid for understanding the entire P&ID process
• facilitates commitment to information “fixity” (or stability) by dividing the

evolutionary process into discrete stages
• alters the “recycle” paradigm: all P&ID information evolves slowly.
The research team found the following six stages best describe the flow of the
P&ID development process:
1. AFP: Approval for preliminary review
2. AFM: Approval for multi-disciplinary review
3. AFO: Approval for owner review
4. AFD: Approval for detailed design
5. AFC: Approval for construction
6. AFS: Approval for start-up and operations.
Figure 2.1 depicts the six P&ID development stages and their activities. The
stages are shown in oval shapes at the bottom of the figure. The oval shapes on the
left are the predecessors to the ovals to their right. Above each stage are the
essential activities (shown vertically) for completing each stage. The arrows
indicate the sequence of the P&ID development. The shadowed blocks are P&ID
review activities. The double-lined blocks are P&ID development milestones.
9
10
Legend
O D D = P&ID Development = P&ID Information
Prepare Scope Receive Owner Develop AFO Stage Input
S Interm.
of Work AFP P&ID to Draft AFD
Supplier = P&ID Development = P&ID-Related
Input Milestone Activity
O D X
Process = P&ID Development O = Owner S = Supplier
Flow Develop P&ID Develop Draft O D = Designer C = Constructor
O/D Activity &
Diagram Schedule Reqt. AFM P&ID D
O S Multi-Disc. Reponsible Team O/D = Owner/Designer
Modify AFM Hazard/Safety Input
O Prelim. D to Draft AFO Revw • Piping/
• Control O
O Collect Prelim. Supplier O Mech.
Concept Conduct C
Input • Elect/ Issue AFD
• Interlock P&ID Input Owner Revw D D Receive Owner
Owner Instrum. P&ID for
Req’ts Collect AFC P&ID
Proj. Issue Draft • Struct. Detailed Design D
• Std. Dwgs. O Hazard/Safety
D Team AFO for • Geotech.
& Symbols Comments
Collect Prelim. Input Owner Revw D Detailed Disc.
Issue AFM P&ID
• Piping/Mech.
D
P&ID Internally Receive AFD
• Eqpt. List O • Equipment Engrg. D • Elect. & Modify AFC
• Piping Spec. Multi-Discip. O for Detailed
• Piping & Ducts Check- Instrum. to AFS
Revw Modify Draft Design
• Supplier • Instrument. lists Conduct • Struct.
• Owner AFD to Satisfy • Geotech.
C
Packages • Elec. Req’ts Owner Revw
D (Optional) Hazard/Safety D * Field
• Eng’g Stds. • Special Req’ts • Dgn Team
O
- Piping Revw Changes
• Eqpt. & Mech. D Expert, Rvw Owner Modify AFD
- HVAC Supports D Draft to D O/D
• Prelim. Safety or
- Elect. P&ID
& Environ. P&ID Collect Owner O/D Match Detailed Material Pre-Start-Up
- Instrum. O Check- Comments Design Results Quantity Revw
• Construct. Revw Pre-Detailed
- Insul’n lists Takeoff
Issue Draft • Plant Op/Main Check- Design Revw
- Fire Prot. O/D D
P&ID Internal • Research lists • Plant Op/Main
D
Review • Construct. Pre-Construct. S Modify P&IDs
Modify Draft Final
D Revw to Incorporate
AFO to Supplier
O Comments
Collect Multi- Incorporate D Input
Collect Internal Discipline Owner D D
Modify Draft
Comments Comments Comments Complete
AFD to AFD Issue AFS
AFC P&ID
to Owner
O D
D D D
Modify Draft Modify Draft O
AFM to Match Reissue AFO Issue AFD
to Match Issue AFC Approval of
Comments for Approval to Owner
Comments to Owner AFS P&ID
O D O O O O
Approval for Approval of Approval of Approval of Approval of Start
AFP P&ID AFM P&ID AFO P&ID AFD P&ID AFC P&ID Operation
Approval for Approval for Approval for Approval for Approval for Approval for
Preliminary Multi-Discipline Owner Detailed Design Construction Start-Up &
Review Stage Review Stage Review Stage Stage Stage Operation Stage
AFP AFM AFO AFD AFC AFS
Figure 2.1. Tool #1-A: Procedure — Integrated Flowchart for P&ID Development Process
A milestone, shown above every oval, is a checkpoint or “quality gate” at the

end of each P&ID development stage. It should communicate the degree of
progress of that stage. A milestone also is a formalized activity for approving the
content of P&IDs for follow-on P&ID development.
The key activities of the integrated P&ID development flowchart can be

divided into the following categories:
• information collection, such as process flow diagrams (PFDs) and interlocks
• preparation of P&IDs
• issuance of P&IDs
• P&IDs reviews
• collection of review comments
• modification to P&IDs
• approval of P&IDs.
Tool #1-B: Procedure — Information and Decisions for P&ID Development Stages
The research team prepared Table 2.1 to describe the information and
decisions needed for each of the P&ID development stages. This table assists the
completion of Figure 2.1. Tool #1-B should be used in conjunction with Tools #1-
A and #1-C.
Tool #1-C: Procedure — Use of the Integrated P&ID Development Flowchart
To use the integrated P&ID flowchart effectively, it is suggested that users

follow the steps shown in Figure 2.2 (page 13). This tool should be used in
conjunction with Tools #1-A and #1-B.
11
Table 2.1. Tool #1-B: Procedure — Information and Decisions Needed for
Each P&ID Development Stage
P&ID Information Decision

Development Needed Needed
Stage
AFP - Owner’s project work scope - Owner’s process

- Process flow diagram design approval of
- Control concept AFP P&IDs
- Standard drawings and symbols
- Equipment list
- Piping specification, if available
- Supplier packages available
- Engineering standards
AFM: - Engineering checklists - Multi-discipline’s

- Preliminary supplier input approval of AFM
- Multi-discipline review comments P&IDs
from both the owner and design firms
- Expert review comments, such as
safety and environmental,
construction, plant operations and
maintenance, and research groups
AFO - Owner’s review comments - Owner’s approval of

- Owner’s review checklist AFO P&IDs
AFD - Hazard/safety review comments - Consensus of design

- Secondary expert review comments: team that information
plant operations/maintenance and is solid
construction
- Intermediate supplier input
- Final multi-discipline input, such as
piping/mechanical, electrical/
instrument, and civil
- Owner’s approval of AFD P&IDs
AFC - Final supplier input - Owner’s approval of

- As-designed safety, environmental AFC P&IDs
review data
AFS - Last operations/maintenance/safety - Owner’s approval of

and other field changes AFS P&IDs
12
1. Create or obtain a P&ID Development Flowchart that

depicts the process adopted by your company.
Step 1
2. Break down the process into six discrete stages: AFP,
AFM, AFO, AFD, AFC, and AFS.
The Integrated
Compare your company’s P&ID flowchart to P&ID
Step 2
the Integrated P&ID Development Flowchart Development
Flowchart
1. Identify the differences between the two flowcharts.

Step 3
2. Identify the causes of the differences.
1. Determine the need to modify your company’s P&ID

development flowchart.
Step 4 2. Estimate required resources for the modification.
3. Estimate advantages of the modification.
Present: (1) the modified P&ID development flowchart;

Step 5 (2) Resource estimate; (3) Estimated advantages to
management for decision
Proceed
No
Step 6 with the
modification?
Yes
Distribute the modified P&ID development flowchart

Step 7
internally.
Develop P&IDs in accordance with the company’s

Step 8
modified P&ID development flowchart.
Figure 2.2. Tool #1-C — Procedure — The Process for Using the Integrated
P&ID Development Flowchart
13
Tool #2-A: Policy — Owner Project Team Formation for Early Input
To deal with untimely input to P&IDs, some owners have changed their
traditional approach of soliciting information input so as to maximize the chances
of their projects’ success. These owners are now not only obtaining early input into
the P&IDs from the process groups, but are soliciting input from design engineering
groups as well as construction and maintenance personnel (Figure 2.3).
In the 1990s many owners changed the conventional timing for incorporating
internal and external input into their P&ID development process. Figure 2.3,
which is composed of Figures 2.3.1 and 2.3.2, depicts that change. This figure is
adapted from a diagram of a project effort input concept provided by a CII owner
company. Figure 2.3.1 depicts that owners in the 1980s requested P&ID information
primarily from manufacturing/operations units and the process engineering group
at the early stages of P&ID reviews: AFP, AFM, and AFO. Other information
input, from the design engineering group, construction group, process control
group, and suppliers, generally took place in the later stages, i.e., AFD, AFC, and
AFS. However, this owner and several other experts interviewed have agreed that
late input often leads to P&ID changes. Typically, this late input includes
comments from the operations/maintenance group, construction group, and
package unit suppliers.
With both domestic and international markets getting more competitive and
leading to smaller profit margins, progressive owners are looking for approaches
where they can realize a cost-benefit ratio. Acquiring both external and internal
input earlier in the process is one key approach. Figure 2.3.2 demonstrates how
some owners organize task forces to better integrate P&ID information input. The
early inputs that begin in the AFM stage come not only from manufacturing units
and process engineering groups, but also from design engineering, process control,
construction/maintenance, and certain key suppliers.
Supplier input, a type of external input in the P&ID development process, is

a continuous effort, not a discrete activity. The Integrated P&ID Development
Flowchart (Figure 2.1) reveals that the optimal time and contents for supplier
input are as follows:
14
1980s
100
Manuf./
Oper.
%
Effort 50 Process Design Constr./
Input Engr’g Engr’g Maint.
Process
Control
0
Figure 2.3.1. Project Effort Input Stages (1980s)
1990s
100
Manuf./
Oper.
%
Effort 50 Process Design
Input Engr’g Engr’g Constr./
Maint.
Process
Control
0
Figure 2.3.2. Project Effort Input Stages (1990s)
Figure 2.3. Comparison of Project Effort Input for 1980s and 1990s
• Preliminary supplier input: AFM stage, for acquiring supplier package

designation, preliminary information, and interface concepts;
• Intermediate supplier input: AFD stage, for freezing supplier package

designation, supplier details as required, and interface details;
• Final supplier input: AFC stage, for certifying the supplier information
provided.
15
The purpose of obtaining continuous supplier input from the AFM stage to
the AFC stage is to have as much supplier data frozen as possible by the time the
P&IDs reach the AFD stage. Readers can also refer to Chapter 3 for supplier data
process improvement and Chapter 4 for packaged unit process improvement.
The owner’s project team, an effective internal input source, is organized at

the beginning of a project in order to provide P&ID information input and to assist
in the progress of the project. The composition of the team often varies.
Recommendations regarding formation timing, team members, and key tasks for
the project team that emerged from the research are shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2. Tool #2-A: Policy — Formation of the Owner Project Team
for Early Input
Formation Timing:
No later than the AFP or AFM stage
Composition of Project Team:

• Project manager/engineer
• Process engineer
• Environmental, safety, and industrial hygiene engineers
• Piping/mechanical engineers
• Instrumentation/electrical engineers
• Construction experts
• Operations engineers from units
• Maintenance engineers from units
Key Tasks of the Project Team:

• Achieve an internal agreement on piping design philosophies and the
philosophies of operations/maintenance among the project team members
to meet project goals.
• Provide individual discipline expertise and lessons learned of late P&ID

changes from other projects.
16
Tool #2-B: Policy — Tactics for Overcoming Barriers to Owner Project Team
Formation
There are two key barriers to owner project team formation. The first barrier
is related to the allocation and distribution of project resources. The second is
related to the owner organizational management and team member attitude. In
order to overcome these two barriers, four recommended tactics are listed in Table
2.3. The first two barrier breakers are recommended to resolve project resource
problems; the second two are intended to deal with the owner’s management issue.
Table 2.3. Tool #2-B: Policy — Tactics for Overcoming Barriers

to Owner Project Team Formation
Barriers for Project Team Recommended

Organization Tactics
• Project Resource Issue: • Allocate resources for training one

Organizations have difficulty in or more engineers as a qualified
allocating resources for team substitute for the group leader.
members’ participation in P&ID
• Allocate funds for greater early
reviews.
involvement of construction/
operations/maintenance personnel.
• Owner Management Issue: • Have top-down recognition of the

Some team members have difficulty importance of early project input.
in allocating time to provide
• Conduct cost comparisons between
meaningful input to P&IDs. This is
the projects that have team input
because the project team assignment
and the projects that do not have
often comes in addition to their
team input.
regular work assignments with the
operations or maintenance groups.
17
Inefficient Procedures for P&ID Development & Reviews — Need for Tools
As discussed in Section 2.1, inefficient procedures for P&ID development/

reviews are the second driver that leads to artificially frozen P&IDs and late P&ID
changes. The research team found that primary causes of the inefficient P&ID
development/review procedures are two industry paradigms:
1. P&ID changes always occur.
2. It is impossible to totally freeze P&IDs during the design and construction

phases of a project.
Because of the above two paradigms, many companies ignore the need for
P&ID development and review procedures. Research data show that 60 percent
(12/20) of the companies interviewed do not have P&ID development or review
procedures.
Some companies believe that organizing a P&ID development procedure is

too much of a challenge when time and budget are limited. The challenge comes
from the difficulty of obtaining sufficient information related to the following
items:
1. A complete list of P&ID information elements
2. Preparation of information for P&IDs
3. Standard items
4. Adequate timing for freezing each P&ID information element
5. A more efficient P&ID review checklists
6. A responsibility assignment chart
7. Methods to avoid artificially frozen P&IDs
Research indicates that there is no industry-wide procedure for developing

and reviewing P&IDs. Companies have diverse views on how to breakup P&ID
development in order to check progress. Although there are disparate views on
18
P&ID procedures, the P&ID development and review documents that were
collected revealed the following key problems and their inter-relationships (Figure
2.1):
1) Lack of fundamental P&ID information
2) Lack of P&ID standardization
3) Lack of basis for freezing P&IDs
4) Lack of structured and efficient P&ID review checklists
5) Unclear ownership of P&ID information
6) Artificially frozen P&IDs.
Tools for Improving Inefficient Procedures for P&ID Development and Reviews
After examining the problems of inefficient procedures for P&ID development

and reviews, the following tools were compiled and developed:
1. Tool #3: Policy — Pre-P&ID Information List
2. Tool #4: Policy — P&ID Standardization List
3. Tool #5: Checklist — P&ID Review Checklist
4. Tool #6: Policy — Responsibility Assignment Chart for P&ID
5. Tool #7: Policy — Strategies for Avoiding Artificially Frozen P&IDs.
Tool #3: Policy — Pre-P&ID Information List
Prior to the development of P&IDs, the group controlling P&ID development

(the systems engineering or process engineering group) should acquire the pre-
P&ID information shown in Table 2.4 to establish a solid basis for P&ID
information development. This information will increase certainty for P&ID
development.
19
Table 2.4. Tool #3: Policy — List of Needed Pre-P&ID Information

and Providers
Needed Pre-P&ID Information Possible Information Provider
Process flow diagrams for this project • Process engineer
Process flow diagrams from similar • Previous project managers/engineers

projects • Operations engineers
Lessons learned from similar process • Previous project managers/engineers

conditions • Process engineers from the previous
project
• Operations/maintenance engineers
Prioritized information on past P&IDs • Previous project managers/engineers

• Process engineers from the previous
project
Literature on new construction materials, • Suppliers

instruments, and equipment • Research group
Piping design engineering checklists • Refer to Sandler & Luckiewicz (1987),

pp. 68–108.
Tool #4: Policy — P&ID Standardization List
Standardization in the P&ID philosophies, P&ID physical components

(equipment/ instruments and piping components), drafting representations, P&ID
conventions, terminology, and symbology can increase the level of certainty of the
P&ID development and have a significant positive impact on the piping function.
Due to the different backgrounds of each company and lack of an internally
unified P&ID representation system, there are no industry-wide standards for
P&ID representation, conventions, terminology, and symbology. Therefore,
companies depend largely upon their engineers’ experience and preferences.
20
Because these experience and preferences are rarely alike between owners and
their design counterparts, several months may be spent in the parties’ becoming
familiar with each other’s P&ID systems. To improve this situation, the industry
should establish standards for P&ID philosophies and P&ID physical components
as this will minimize time spent on coming to a mutual understanding.
Standard P&ID philosophies allow project participants to establish common

ground on philosophical issues before proceeding with their own individual tasks.
Standard physical components, such as instrumentation and piping, enable
project participants to refer either to pre-approved standards for material selection
or to pre-approved components to achieve design intents. These two types of
standardization can reduce costs during design, procurement, construction, and
operations/maintenance stages. This is due to the reduction of information
uncertainty that they would otherwise yield.
Research found the top five items that have a high standardization potential
in P&ID philosophy and physical components. These are listed in Table 2.5 below:
Table 2.5. Tool #4: Policy — List for P&ID Standardization

for Piping Function
Philosophy Standards Physical Component Standards
• Control valve bypass philosophy • Types of flow meters
• Equipment requirements • Types of control valves
• Location of relief devices • Size of pressure valves
• Safety system maintenance • Pressure safety valves (PSVs)/

pressure sensing elements (PSEs)
• Selection of transmitter leads:
tubing or hard pipe • Temperature instruments
The other potential needs for P&ID standardization are P&ID drafting
representations, P&ID terminology, and symbology. However, these are beyond
the scope of this research.
21
Tool #5: Checklist — P&ID Review Checklist and Its Use
Seven reviews are needed in the P&ID development process, as depicted in

Figure 2.1 (page 10). The general purposes for P&ID reviews include:
• to ensure that project premises are understood and adhered to.
• to ensure that the information elements to be frozen during each stage are
accurate.
• to focus on safety, operations, maintenance, and/or start-up issues.
• to provide a communication means for designers to understand the owner’s

needs that are not defined or unclear in the design scope.
• to allow owners to monitor the design progress.
• to discover design errors/omissions early.
• to facilitate unit operations and maintenance.
• to provide a second opinion for P&ID designers.
• to coordinate and integrate design efforts.
• to invite past experience from senior designers.
The contents of the seven reviews vary. The P&ID development technical
review checklist, shown in Table 2.6, identifies the technical contents for each
review and suggests a “freezing time” for each element. The “freezing time” is
defined as the milestone beyond which any further changes would result in
significant impacts on engineering and/or construction costs/schedules. The
research team interviewed 32 experts from 11 owner companies and nine contractor
companies to establish the “critical” time for freezing each P&ID information
element.
Although there was some agreement between owners and contractors on the
timing for freezing P&ID information elements, there was no established agreement
within the research sample. The research team has determined that a threshold
value of a cumulative 40 percent, starting from the AFP stage, is a reasonable
cutoff in determining the critical time for freezing each P&ID element. When an
overall cumulative response value (percent) was higher than 40 percent, that stage
was considered to be the critical one for freezing this P&ID element.
22
Table 2.6. Tool #5: Checklist — P&ID Development Technical Review Checklist (Page 1 of 6)
P&ID Development P&ID Dwg. No.: CADD File No.:

Technical Review Checklist Acceptance Status (Circle One): Yes No If No, Total No. of Deviations: _____
P&ID Title: Originator: Auditor: Check Date:
Project Name: P&ID Type (Circle One): Process Utility Auxiliary Rev. Date:
P&ID Development Stage
(Circle One) P&ID Technical Information Elements Acceptance Status:
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Yes / No. of
AFP AFM AFO AFD AFC AFS A. Equipment No Deviations:___

• 1. Symbol representing each type of item on the equipment list
• 2. Equipment names are shown and match the equipment list
• 3. Equipment numbers are shown and match the equipment list
• 4. Drivers as required
• 5. Installed spares
• 6. Major internals including trays, packing, and demister pads
• 7. Specialty flanges
• 8. Arrangement of heat exchanger shells
• : Recommended time to freeze an element

23
24

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Yes / No. of
AFP AFM AFO AFD AFC AFS A. Equipment (continued) No Deviations:___
9. Number of sections/elements for equipment such as air
•
cooled exchangers, cooling towers, etc.
10. Number and relative location of flow connections external

to the equipment, such as lube oil, seal flush, side draws,
•
cooling water for inter-coolers and lube oil coolers, bypass,
drains, etc.
• 11. Supplier package designations
• 12. Supplier details as required
• 13. Pump seal flush schematics
• 14. Bearing lube systems


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Yes / No. of
AFP AFM AFO AFD AFC AFS B. Pipe Lines No Deviations:___

• 1. Line sizes
• 2. Line specification
• 3. Line numbers
• 4. Tie-in designations
• 5. Paint specification
C. Valves
• 1. Valve tags
• 2. Valve type
• 3. Valve size

25
26

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Yes / No. of
AFP AFM AFO AFD AFC AFS D. Instrumentation No Deviations:___
• 1. Primary control function
• 2. Panel, local, PLC or DCS designations
• 3. Alarm and shutdown requirements
• 4. Instrumentation and control hardware
• 5. Instrument numbers
• 6. Failure positions, where applicable
• 7. Bridles/manifolds
• 8. Control valve bypasses designated
• 9. Instrument isolation valve locations


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Yes / No. of
AFP AFM AFO AFD AFC AFS E. Safety Systems No Deviations:___
• 1. Pressure controlled vents and safety relief valves; rupture discs
2. Discharge designation of relief devices, e.g., atmosphere, high

• pressure flare header, etc.
• 3. Back flow preventors, flame arrestors, safety showers
• 4. Emergency interlocks
F. Insulation and Tracing

• 1. Insulation type and thickness
• 2. Jacketing
• 3. Tracing type
G. Specialty Items
• 1. Hoses
• 2. Steam traps
• 3. Line blinds, etc.
• 4. Sample systems

27
28

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Yes / No. of
AFP AFM AFO AFD AFC AFS H. Special Notations No Deviations:___
1. Discharge designations for drains and vents, e.g., open drain,
•
closed drain, process drain, storm drain, atmosphere, etc.
2. Miscellaneous notes, such as normally open / closed, car seal

open / closed, free drainage line, low point drain, high point
• vent, drop out spool piece, minimum distance, construction
strainers
• 3. Seal leg requirements
4. Critical elevations, e.g. vessel elevation relative to pump

• centerline
• 5. Discipline design details as required
I. Interlocks
• 1. Sufficient detail of the interlock logic
• 2. Abbreviated description and reference to other document.

This P&ID development technical review checklist offers the following

advantages:
• It presents comprehensive technical information elements that are required

for a complete set of P&IDs.
• It can be used during all six P&ID development stages.
• It indicates a suggested “freeze” time-frame for each P&ID element.
• It can assist P&ID originators and project personnel in scheduling completion

of certain P&ID elements.
• It can assist P&ID originators and project personnel in identifying the

“need” versus availability of key information elements.
• It shows the acceptance status of a P&ID.
• It provides a quality check to the P&ID originators for immediate, as well

as future improvement opportunities.
Steps for Using the P&ID Review Checklist

1. Before reviewing a P&ID, one should finish drawing information associated
with that particular P&ID. This information includes: the P&ID drawing
number, CADD file number, P&ID title, project name, auditor’s name,
check date, and P&ID type.
2. Reviewers should use the complete checklist (all six pages) to review each
P&ID.
3. Reviewers should circle one of the P&ID development stages on the checklist
to indicate the review stage; this checklist can be used during all six stages
of the P&ID development process.
4. The P&ID should be reviewed by following a sequence from category A-

Equipment to category I-Interlocks, as shown on the checklist.
5. The ultimate quality or accuracy of each P&ID information element depends

partly upon the reviewers’ effort. This capability can be enhanced by using
an engineering checklist.
29
6. Reviewers should identify the deviations for each P&ID element and then
make a note in the column for the number of deviations on the checklist.
7. Reviewers should accumulate the total number of deviations for each P&ID
and then determine the acceptance status.
8. Reviewers should return each P&ID, with marked-up comments, to the

originator.
9. Originators should incorporate the reviewers’ comments prior to the next

review.
Tool #6: Procedure — Responsibility Assignment Chart for P&ID Development
The responsibility assignment chart (Table 2.7) identifies participants who

should be involved in the P&ID development process, and their associated
responsibilities. This chart, modified from a CII owner company’s RACI chart,
not only indicates responsibilities of each key players involved in the P&ID
development process, but also correlates the participants with (1) the definition of
P&ID scope of work, (2) the incorporation of standard drawings and symbols, (3)
incorporation of safety concepts, (4) supplier data collection, (5) hazard review,
and (6) the six P&ID development stages. With the correlation, project managers
can clearly identify the project participants required for each development stage
and can facilitate personnel and resource planning. In this table, four letters are
used to indicate the various responsibility roles of each related party:
R: Responsible — The group is responsible for doing the work.
A: Accountable — The group is accountable for insuring that the result occurs.
C: Consult — The group must be consulted before making decisions and

informed after decisions, but consensus not required.
I: Inform — The group must be informed of decisions or additional

actions.
30
Table 2.7. Tool #6: Procedure — Responsibility Assignment Chart for P&ID Development
Legend Process Project Piping Mech Instrum/ Safety Oper’ns Mainten Const’n Tech. Draft
A: Accountable, C: Consult, Engr. Mgr/ Engr. Engr. Elec. Engr. Engr. Engr. Engr. Expert
I: Inform, R: Responsible (1) Engr. (2) (3) (4) Engr (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11)
Define P&ID Scope of Work R A C C C C C C I I C
Schedule P&ID Work R A C C C C C C C C C
Provide PFD R A
Provide Control Strategy R A R C
Integrate Control/ R A R C C C C
Interlocks Strategy
Std. Dwgs. and Symbols R A I I I I I I C
Incorporate Safety Concept R A C C
Operation Concept R A C C
Maintenance Concept R A C C

Select Instrum./ C A R C C
Elec. Hardware
Insulation Reqt. R A C C C
Insulation Spec. C A R R
Research & Dvpt. I A R
Draft P&IDs C A C C R
Prepare AFP P&IDs R A R
Issue AFP for Review R A
Review P&IDs R A R R R R R R R R
Consolidate Comments R A C C C
Collect Supplier Data R A R R R C
Conduct Hazard Revw. R A R R R C
Approve AFP P&IDs R A R R R I I I I
Approve AFM P&IDs R A R R R C C C C
Approve AFO P&IDs R A R R R C C C C
Approve AFD P&IDs R A R R R C C C C
Approve AFC P&IDs R A R R R C C C C
Approve AFS P&IDs R A R R R C C C
31
Tool #7: Policy — Strategies for Avoiding Artificially Frozen P&IDs
P&IDs can be truly frozen or “artificially” frozen. P&IDs are truly frozen
when information is certain and no future design changes or construction changes
will be necessary. Conversely, P&IDs that are frozen before some of their
information elements are truly certain are considered “artificially” frozen. Uncertain
P&ID information elements that have been artificially frozen often lead to late
P&ID changes, piping design changes, procurement/fabrication changes, and
construction changes.
Table 2.8 shows 10 conditions and the recommended solutions for each.
These conditions are listed in the order of agreement percentages that are shown
in the middle column. The higher the percentage, the more experts interviewed
agreed that the condition leads to artificially frozen P&IDs. These percentages
range from 83 percent (non-certified supplier data) to 46 percent (without
construction group’s review) and indicate that:
1. Non-certified supplier data (83 percent) is the most common condition

leading to artificially frozen P&IDs. This confirms an earlier finding by the
research team in 1993 that supplier data was another potential area for
improving the piping function (see Section 1.1).
2. Three second most common conditions are:
• the information may change in the future (79 percent)
• the information has not been reviewed by owner maintenance personnel

(79 percent)
• the information has not been reviewed by owner hazard/safety/operations

staff (75 percent).
3. The third most common condition for artificially frozen P&IDs are:
• the information is temporarily accepted to meet design schedule (67

percent)
• the information is waiting for further input from process engineers (67
percent)
• the information is frozen before it has been reviewed by all disciplines (63
percent).
32
4. The fourth most common condition for artificially frozen P&IDs is that the
information is hard to freeze in similar previous projects (58 percent).
5. Approximately half of those interviewed consider that the following two

conditions leading to artificially frozen P&IDs are not as common:
• the information is designed by inexperienced personnel (50 percent)
• the information has not been reviewed by the construction group (46
percent). The research team found that this is because many of the CII
member companies interviewed have implemented constructability studies
at the early stage of projects.
The solutions shown in the far right column of Table 2.8 are compiled from
the suggestions collected from the experts interviewed in addition to the research
team’s opinions.
Inefficient Communication of P&ID Uncertainty — Need for Tools
Inefficient communication of P&ID uncertainty is the third driver that leads

to artificially frozen P&IDs and late P&ID changes. The research team found four
primary causes of the inefficient communication of P&ID uncertainty.
The development of P&IDs evolves through six stages, involving different

levels of uncertainty in each stage. The earlier the stage, the more uncertain the
P&ID information. Efficient P&ID communication can help to minimize the level
of uncertainty that affects the piping function. Without such communication, the
industry will continue to suffer from “reinventing the wheel” in design solutions,
a lack of interdisciplinary coordination, repetition of the same mistakes in P&IDs,
incomplete P&IDs, artificially frozen P&IDs, and late P&ID changes.
33
34
Table 2.8. Tool #7: Policy — Strategies for Avoiding Artificially Frozen P&IDs (Page 1 of 2)
Conditions Leading to Artificially Agreement

Frozen P&IDs Percentage Strategies
1. The information is based on non- 83% • Early selection of suppliers; early procurement of critical items.
certified supplier data.
• Cloud the whole area; show interfaces and major features for
reference.
• Cloud the whole area and show nothing but interfaces. A note that
assists engineers in making decisions for down-stream work is
necessary to indicate to the P&ID reviewers that the features shown
in the clouded area are based on one of the following conditions:
- The supplier data has no dimension.
- The supplier data is from a supplier’s catalogue.
- The supplier data is based on approval drawings only.
2. There is a good possibility that 79% • Treat it as “on hold” information; cloud it, set a target date for
the information may change in resolving the uncertainty, and provide the following information:
the future. - What item is uncertain?
- Who is responsible for the hold?
- When will the “hold” be released?
3. The information has not been 79% • Cloud the uncertain information and mark it as “on hold.”
reviewed by owner maintenance • Responsible designers request an owner review within a specified
personnel. time frame.
4. The information has not been 75% • Brainstorming session, involving senior staff from operating units,
reviewed by owner hazard/safety/ should be held before the approval for owner review stage (AFO).
operations staff.
Table 2.8. Tool #7: Policy — Strategies for Avoiding Artificially Frozen P&IDs (Page 2 of 2)
Conditions Leading to Artificially Agreement

Frozen P&IDs Percentage Strategies
5. The information is temporarily 67% • Develop a realistic design schedule.
accepted in order to meet design • Cloud the uncertain information and mark it as “on hold.”
submittal milestones. • Use partnering concept to avoid hostility between the owners/
designers.
6. The information is waiting for 67% • Do not release uncertain information for further design.
further input from process • Invoke change management system requiring justification for
engineers. changes.
7. The information is frozen before 63% • Information should only be frozen after a multi-disciplinary review

it has been reviewed by all and approval by individual reviewers. Deviations from the approved
disciplines, such as piping, P&IDs should be discouraged after this point.
mechanical, electrical/ • Non-approved P&IDs would only be released for reference and
instrument, etc. should not be released for further downstream design.
8. The information is hard to freeze 58% • Document lessons learned from previous projects.
in similar previous projects. • Standardize P&ID information from lessons learned.
9. The information is designed by 50% • Extensive use of P&ID development guidelines, standards, and
inexperienced personnel. P&ID review checklists in order to train young engineers and to
maintain a consistent level of P&ID quality.
• Use experienced engineers to review the P&IDs designed by
inexperienced engineers.
10. The information has not been 46% • Bring the construction experts in early at the AFO stage to review
reviewed by the construction both P&IDs and plot plans.
group.
35
The current approach to communicating P&ID uncertainty is to highlight the

uncertain information with a “cloud” and mark it with the word “hold” (Figure
2.4). This means that the on-hold information is incomplete and waiting for
further input. Any follow-on design that is based on “hold” information has a high
risk of rework.
HOLD
P&ID K-18
Figure 2.4. An Example of a Traditional “Hold” on a P&ID
Process engineers who design P&IDs with “holds” have different approaches
to take care of the areas in the clouds. Some process engineers show an indicative
layout of an on-hold process to P&ID users so as to give them a basic idea of this
process. Other engineers consider this approach as likely to mislead the readers to
use the uncertain information for their follow-on design. These engineers, therefore,
strongly recommend that the clouded area should show nothing but interface
information. This interface information is considered to be frozen in this approach.
Usually, engineers who encounter a “hold” take one of the following two
kinds of actions. The first is to leave the “hold” alone and wait for more
information to come. This often leads to an incomplete P&ID design submittal,
and is, therefore, not preferred by many design managers. The second kind of
action is for the engineers to proceed with a detailed design based on the
temporary information shown in the “hold.” This often results in rework in
design/manufacturing/ construction due to late information updates pertaining to
the “hold.” Because the current approach of communicating P&ID uncertain
information has the above drawbacks, improving such a method is necessary.
36
The research indicated that although 80 percent of the interviewees believe

that the current approach is widely used by the industry, it was found to be
unsatisfactory by 70 percent of the interviewees. The data also indicate that 20
percent of the interviewees thought that this approach should be combined with
some additional information so as to facilitate the communication of uncertainty.
This additional information may come in two forms:
1. Quantifying uncertainty with a percentage value
2. Specifying the information items that remain uncertain.
The research team found four causes leading to the inefficiency in current
P&ID communication. These causes are:
• No specific information about what is uncertain in the “hold.” For example,

a pipeline may be uncertain in its size and material but its elevation may be
firm. A “cloud” that covers the whole line can be misleading to the P&ID
users, since it would appear that all of the information is uncertain.
• No contact point for P&ID users to clarify the information pertaining to the
“hold.” Under schedule pressure, engineers often try to do something with
the “hold” in order to make some detailed design progress. However, they
are troubled by the lack of a person to contact so as to clear up the vagueness
of the hold.
• No time of reference for when the information will become firm. Without
knowing when the “holds” will be discharged, engineers often assume that
the information shown in the on-hold area is likely to be certain and proceed
with their design. This leads to design and construction rework when the
“holds” are clarified by new information.
• No recommendation for follow-on action. The engineers who place the

“holds” on P&IDs know more about the certainty of these “holds” and can
make recommendations to other engineers about follow-on actions. This
recommendation functions as a continuation of design thought and improves
communication between the engineers. The current manner of showing
“holds” does not suggest any follow-on action. Consequently, the design
thought is discontinued, which increases the uncertainty of the P&ID
development process.
37
Tools for Improving Inefficient Communication of P&ID Uncertainty
The following sections discuss two tools that can improve the efficiency of
P&ID communication. The first communication tool can include specific on-hold
information needed, a contact point for clarification, and a time reference for
releasing the “hold.” The second tool provides a recommended action for engineer
follow-up.
Tool #8-A: Procedure — A Hold with Notes
The first tool, adding detailed notes to P&ID “hold” clouds, can provide
additional information to engineers and can help establish a clearer design
direction. This tool has two purposes. The first is to respond to the interviewees’
comment that the “hold” should specify what information items remain uncertain.
The second is to eliminate three of the four causes. This tool recommends that the
following three pieces of information (as a minimum) be included in the notes by
the engineers who prepare P&IDs with “hold” clouds:
1. What are the specific reasons for the “hold”? (What item is uncertain?)
2. Who is responsible for the “hold”?
3. When will the “hold” be released?
In item 1, the specific area of uncertainty, such as the size or material for a
piece of equipment, can be identified in the notes to assist engineers in deciding
their future actions. If the engineers are not sure what action to take, they can
consult the responsible person or discipline, identified in item 2, for additional
information. The engineers can also schedule their design activity based on the
release time indicated in item 3. According to some interviewees, this tool is
particularly useful for large projects, where communication between engineers is
sometimes more difficult. For smaller projects, having weekly meetings to discuss
this information is a viable alternative. An example of this tool is illustrated in
Figure 2.5.
38
HOLD #2
HOLD #2:
(1) Line size and material are on hold.
HOLD #2 (2) Contact John Smith/Process
(512) 555-5555
(3) The hold will be released on 05/30/96
P&ID K-18
Figure 2.5. Tool #8-A: Procedure — Example of a Hold With Notes
Tool #8-B: Procedure — A Hold with an Action Code
An additional tool requests that the quantifiable level of certainty of an “on-

hold” P&ID item be identified and a suggested course of action for follow-on
work be assigned. This tool is intended to eliminate the four undesired conditions
that the current P&ID communication tool has. This alternative tool would give
the following information:
1. What item is uncertain in the “hold”?
2. Who is responsible for the “hold”?
3. What is the suggested action code?
4. When will the “hold” be released?
Table 2.9 shows the relationship between the level of certainty of a “hold”
and the three corresponding suggested actions. In this table, both the level of
certainty of a “hold” and the corresponding suggested actions should be assigned
by the engineers who place the P&ID “on hold.” The percentages in the column
“Level of Certainty” are not significant in themselves, but could be established for
a company or a project. The percentages shown in Table 2.9 are only examples
that the research team considers adequate for this application.
39
Table 2.9. Level of Certainty of a “Hold” and Suggested Actions
Action Code Level of Certainty of a Suggested Action

“Hold” P&ID Information for the “Hold”
A 85~ 100% certain “Go” for down-stream design.
B 60~ 84% certain “Talk to the Designer” before

starting down-stream design
C 59% or less certain “No Go” for

down-stream design.
Figure 2.6 illustrates an example of a “Hold” in conjunction with an action

code. This example conveys three messages to an engineer. The first is that the line
size and material in the “Hold” area are uncertain. The second is that the engineer
needs to communicate with the P&ID designer, John Smith in process discipline,
for additional information before proceeding with his/her downstream work. The
last is that the engineer could decide if he/she should continue detail design before
5/30/96.
HOLD #2
HOLD #2:
(1) Line size and material are on hold.
HOLD #2 (2) Contact John Smith/Process
(512) 555-5555
(3) Action Code: B
(4) The hold will be released on 05/30/96
P&ID K-18
Figure 2.6: Tool #8-B: Procedure — Example of a Hold With an Action Code
40
Chapter 3:
Tools for Enhancing the Supplier Data Process
Problems in the Supplier Data Process
Supplier data process is the second contributor to the inefficiency of the

piping function. This chapter identifies the uncertainties introduced into the
piping work flow due to the supplier data process and discusses tools to reduce or
remove these uncertainties.
Research indicates that the following items directly influence supplier data
timeliness and quality:
• Supplier data requests
• Means of communication (such as mail, e-mail, computer disks etc.)
• Communication level with designers
• Complexity of data needed
• Number of submittal cycles
• Existence of a supplier/designer alliance
• Nature of the bid process.
Research also indicates three major classes of problems with the above factors
of supplier data:
• Communication problems, of which the main component is inefficiency in

communicating supplier document schedules, delivery deadlines and review
schedules.
• Coordination problems, which are primarily caused by the necessity of

sharing a large amount of scattered information among various engineering
disciplines.
• Supplier selection problems, which stem mostly from using the classical bid
approach.
The following sections analyze these problems in detail and provide

recommended solutions.
41
Chapter 3: Tools for Enhancing the Supplier Data Process
Communication Problems — Need for Tools
In many cases, research shows that a communication problem exists between

suppliers and designers relating to supplier documentation. The submittal of
supplier data from suppliers to designers and the subsequent document approval
process frequently suffer from delays and missing information. These accumulate
and eventually delay or result in rework to main design document production
(P&IDs, isometrics, and others).
The main cause of such communication problems centers around the supplier
data requests themselves. Some designers assume that suppliers know the “standard”
set of drawings that are required to support the design effort and that their
definitions of information to be included on each type of drawing (i.e., general
arrangement drawings or detail drawings) are the same. In addition, suppliers are
not always fully informed as to when designers need supplier drawings. The
resulting effects include:
• Missing supplier data and information
• Supplier documents delivered late
• Supplier document reviews completed later than required to support the

design effort
• Design documents (P&IDs, ISOs, etc.) issued with holds
• Design documents (P&IDs, ISOs, etc.) issued late or with preliminary

information.
Tools for Improving Communication Problems:

Tools #9-A and #9-B: Procedure — Preprinted Supplier Data Request Form
The recommended solution is an information management tool, that is, a

standard form to be filled out by the designer for every equipment requisition/
specification issued (see Figure 3.1). A commentary on this form is also presented
(Figure 3.2).
42
Supplier Data Request Form
Equipment No.: ____________ Project: _________________

RFQ No.: ____________ Specification: _________________
Revisions: _________________
Date: _________________
The supplier is to furnish the following data for each equipment item furnished in the
quantities, packages and schedules established below. All documentation must be
identified with the following information: Plant - Project - Order # - Equipment/Tag #
For Info For Final &

Pkg Bid Only Approval Certified
DATA TYPE No. Qty Qty/Sch Qty/Sch Qty/Sch
Arrangement Drawings ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Detail Drawings ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Completed Data Sheets ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Performance Curves ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Calculations ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Assembly Drawings ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Weld Proced. and Qual. ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
QA Manual / Procedures ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Test Procedures ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Special Tool Requirements ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Equipment Manuals ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Storage & Handling ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Spares Recommendations ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Test Reports ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Shipping Data ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Wiring Connect Diagram ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Control Logic Diagrams ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
P & I Diagrams ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Detailed Parts List ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Supplier Schedules ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Nameplate Facsimile ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Catalog Info and Cuts ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Materials Tests Report ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Inspection Reports ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Relay/Fuse/Brkr Curves ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Config. Programming ____ ___ ___/___ ___/___ ___/___
Submit to: Supplier Data Coordinator

Address
Phone / Fax Important: see procedures on back
Figure 3.1. Tool #9-A: Procedure — Supplier Data Request Form
43
Supplier Data Request Form: General Provisions
1. Final payment will not be made until all documentation agreed upon in the
supplier data request has been submitted to the Supplier Data Coordinator.
2. Incomplete documentation will not be reviewed for approval. Documentation

will only be considered on time when a complete submittal is received.
3. Each resubmittal should retain the original document number and should
include a new revision number.
4. Supplier should notify purchaser of voided or inactive documents.

Reassignment of numbers is not permitted.
5. Costs associated with additional documentation required should be itemized

in the supplier’s proposal.
6. Documents that are approved will be kept by the purchaser.
Figure 3.2. Tool #9-B: Procedure — Commentary on

Supplier Data Request Form (Page 1 of 4)
This form and its commentary are to be used as a standard means of

communication between the designer team and the supplier. Prior to purchase
order placement, the dates that the engineering design group requires the various
supplier documents to be submitted, as well as the number of documents and
drawings required by engineering, must be established.
Because of the diversity of design information required for each piece of

equipment, the form can be expanded or contracted according to the individual
needs of each procured item.
44
Supplier Data Request Form: Glossary
Arrangement Drawings: Fully defines outline dimensions in plan and

elevation, with relation to datum, centerlines, centroids and lifting lugs. All
electrical and instrument, equipment, process and service connections and
nozzles shall be identified by size, type and location relative to established
datum. Locations of all supplier furnished equipment shall be identified. The
drawings shall state imposed empty, operating and test loads, and provide
complete foundation requirements.
Detail Drawings: Drawings which provide sufficient detail, including

materials of construction, to verify the design and to facilitate fabrication,
manufacture or installation. Rotating equipment shall include drawings of
stuffing box packing or mechanical seals. Vessel drawings shall include nozzle
schedules and details. This category also includes control panel layouts and
internal piping layouts where applicable. Electrical equipment drawings shall
include layout of all internal components such as relays, devices and terminal
boxes.
Completed Data Sheets: Data sheets furnished by the owner will be

completed by the supplier. Supplier shall also submit data sheets for all
instruments, in sufficient detail to enable owners operation team to describe
them on a material list which will serve as a reference for installation,
calibration, start-up, maintenance and procurement of replacements.
Performance Curves and Data: Graphic representations of the equipment

performance over the specified range of process conditions. Design points
shall be annotated. Motor performance curves and data shall include locked
rotor, acceleration, cold and hot with stand, and speed/torque curves and data
for efficiency and power factors at various loading. Where applicable, this
category shall include curves for instrument calibration.
Engineering Calculations: Calculations which support the supplier’s

design parameters and configuration for the specified equipment.
Assembly Drawings: Detailed drawings providing sufficient information

to facilitate assembly of the component parts of the equipment.

45
Welding Procedures and Qualifications: Supplier welding procedure

specifications and supporting personnel qualification records for all intended
welding, hardfacing, overlaying, brazing soldering.
Quality Assurance Manual / Procedures: The supplier’s documentation

that describes the planned and systematic measures to be used to assure that
structures, systems and components will meet the requirements from a
technical/quality standpoint of the purchaser.
Test Procedures: Full description of planned testing program required for

this equipment either by the specification or the supplier’s self-imposed
requirements.
Special Tool Requirements: A full description of unusual or customized

apparatus required to lift, install, operate or maintain the equipment.
Equipment Manuals: Comprehensive information covering the operation,

maintenance and installation of the equipment. Includes detailed written
procedures describing how the equipment is to be operated. The instructions
will address the disassembly, reassembly, maintenance and lubrication of the
equipment as recommended by the supplier; and provide detailed written
instructions and/or drawings giving step by step procedures for field construction
activities. This shall include electrical equipment installation procedures along
with information on various pieces of equipment shipped in sections including
bus bar connections, wiring terminations, etc.
Storage and Handling Procedures: Detailed written instructions,

requirements and time intervals for lubrication, rotating, heating, lifting or
other handling requirements to prevent damage or deterioration during
storage and handling at the job site. This shall include return shipping
instructions.
On-Board Spares Recommendations: A quantified listing of spare parts,

including instruments which, in the supplier’s opinion, should be included to
facilitate commissioning and first year operation of the equipment. Unit prices
shall be included.
Test Reports: Actual results of supplier testing of the equipment.
Shipping Data: Specific preparation requirements, packaging requirements,

shipping weights, centroids and precautions required to effect the safe and
efficient transport of this equipment.

46
Wiring Diagrams: Drawings which show schematic diagrams, equipment

wiring diagrams, single line diagrams, elementary diagrams (three line), device
internal drawings, grounding and instrument connections.
Control Logic Diagrams: Drawings which identify sequence and show

paths which input signals must follow to accomplish the required responses.
Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams: Drawings which show the piping

scheme and instrumentation control elements for the process.
Detailed Parts List: A comprehensive bill of materials including all

components, instruments, and other hardware used to accomplish assembly of
the equipment. Quantities of each item should be shown as well.
Supplier Schedules: Bar charts or CPM networks which describe the

chronological sequence of supplier activities such as submittals, procurement,
fabrication, assembly, testing and shipping.
Nameplate Facsimile or Ruboff: This category requires a full-scale

representation of the equipment identification tag as required by the
specification.
Catalog Information & Cuts: Description of outsourced commercial

components being furnished with the equipment. This category shall also
include descriptions of the supplier’s standard off-the-shelf equipment.
Certified Material Test Reports: These reports shall include all chemical,
physical, mechanical, and electrical property test data required by the
specification and/or applicable codes.
Inspection Reports: Documentation outlining the results of the supplier’s

quality inspection activity. Description of corrective action and follow-up
verification is required.
Relay/Fuse & Breaker Time Curves: Drawings which provide log-log

scale time current tripping characteristics of the manufacturer’s device or
piece of equipment as required by the specification.
Configuration/Programming: For programmable logic controller or

distributed control system. Supplier to state cost and description of any special
software or standard software packages. Supplier shall also state capability of
supporting the system software and providing field assistance.

47
Coordination Problems — Need for Tools
A supplier document usually needs to be routed to many disciplines within

engineering (i.e. mechanical, electrical, civil, insulation, piping, etc.) in order to
convey information and/or to obtain review comments. The various review
comments from those disciplines then have to be assembled into one document
and sent back to the suppliers. This review process is an area that often results in
both coordination and logistical problems. For example, one of the discipline
engineers may not receive needed supplier data in a timely manner because it is
being delayed by another discipline that is still reviewing it. This could have an
impact on the quality as well as on the schedule of the design effort. In addition,
some engineers might proceed with a design based upon a supplier document that
does not contain the most recent revisions due to poor coordination between
disciplines.
A Tool for Improving Coordination Problems:

Tool #10: Procedure — Supplier Data Coordination Meetings
In order to solve the coordination problems, design teams should hold

supplier data coordination meetings on a regular basis (see Figure 3.3). The
participants should be:
• Requisitioning Engineer
• Expediters
• Lead designers in every discipline involved
• Supplier representative when necessary.
The purpose of the meetings is to:
• Update procurement status (re-deliveries and submittal/return of supplier

documentation)
• Identify the causes of delays in receiving/approving supplier documents
• Provide a forum for the engineers to identify any drawing needs or highlight
time requirements.
48
Participants
Requisitioning Sales
Expediter
engineer engineer
Designer
team Supplier’s
Engineering Supplier
team
disciplines drawing (if necessary)
representativer coordinator
Issues Addressed
Prioritization of
Purchase orders status Reviews status
Purchase Orders
Documentation status Delivery status Delay forecasts
Expected Outcome
All parties know the most

Schedule changes if
current drawing submittal
delays are forecast.
and equipment status.
Engineers and suppliers

communicate their proiorities Optimum purchase
and needs as they relate to order prioritization
engineering documentation.
Figure 3.3. Tool #10: Procedure — Supplier Data Coordination Meetings
49
Supplier Selection Duration — Need for Tools
The supplier data cycle process includes responsibilities and requests from the
designer team, the owner team, and the supplier team.
The overall procurement cycle time to competitively bid equipment and

receive acceptable technical documentation can vary between 12 and 22 weeks (on
average): three to six weeks for bid request/receipt, two to three weeks for bid
tabbing and review, one to two weeks for purchase order placement, four to eight
weeks for average data development/data transmittal, and two to three weeks for
drawing approvals. This long process can result in delays to the production of
design documents. When the certified supplier data is not available at the time it
is needed by the various engineering disciplines on the project, designers have two
options: leave documents on hold or estimate needs until the final data arrives.
Both options can generate waste and increase the level of uncertainty in the design
process. Due to time pressures, the quality of the drawing or documentation
utilized may not be complete and uncertainty is incorporated into the design in
order to “keep things moving.” This increases the likelihood for subsequent
changes and rework in the piping function.
One reason for the length of this process is the supplier selection process. If
a competitive bidding process is utilized, chances are that the bidder may differ
from job to job due to fluctuations in pricing and performance levels. Engineering
must then wait until the procurement cycle is complete before it can utilize any
supplier drawing information. As a result, supplier data receipt time is extended
and frequently behind schedule. The design team then spends additional time and
resources expediting the data or utilizing incomplete/preliminary documentation
in order to maintain the engineering schedule.
50
Tools for Improving Supplier Selection:

Tools #11-A and #11-B: Procedure: — Supplier Pre-Qualification Program
Establish a program (Figures 3.4 and 3.5) administered by a committee to

evaluate and pre-select suppliers, either very early in the project life cycle or
preferably independent of specific projects themselves, for items that have an
impact on the piping function, i.e. pumps and instrumentation. The committee is
to keep a current list of selected suppliers based on their continued good
performance. Other responsibilities include:
• Monitoring the data cycle time for each supplier.
• Monitoring supplier data quality.
• Monitoring missing supplier data and its effects on design documents.
• Monitoring the competitiveness of the supplier quotes.
• Creating and maintaining a set of supplier performance criteria.
• Monitoring supplier quality, technological advances and overall

responsiveness.
The anticipated advantages of such a supplier selection process are:
• Reduced overall procurement cycle time
• Better understanding of requirements between the supplier and the designer
• Earlier availability of reliable/certified supplier data
• Increased supplier data conformance to owner requests based on a better

understanding of the owners wants and needs
• Reduction in inspection and expediting effort
• Possible supplier discounts for volume purchases.
51
Establish a committee
to administer the program
Specialty
Electrical
piping
Communicate goals
and objectives Shop fab.
Valves
pipe
Designate sub-committee for Piping

Exchangers
different types of equipment distribution
Distributive
Instruments
control
Rotating Structural
Sub-committee creates a set equipment steel
of criteria for establishing a
perferred supplier list Supplier data
cycle time
Equipment
quality
Owner
A/E Solicit information from Documentation
Contractor various sources quality
Supplier
Documentation
Sub-committee evaluates timeliness
suppliers
Price (market)
competitiveness
Final negotiations are conducted
with the preferred suppliers
Pricing agreements are

established with the
preferred suppliers
Periodic performance
Committee aggregates all evaluation update
information into one master
preferred-suppliers list Update criteria
Sub-committee maintains
list of preferred suppliers
Issue to appropriate parties
Figure 3.4. Tool #11-A: Procedure: — Supplier Pre-Qualification Procedure
52
Quantitatively, the reduction in the overall procurement cycle time can be

drastic if single sourcing is used in addition to the pre-qualification program. The
overall procurement cycle/supplier documentation approval can be reduced from
the 12 to 22 weeks mentioned earlier to from four to 10 weeks. In addition to
shortening the lead time for supplier drawings and documentation, this program
should significantly reduce the level of uncertainty in the piping design process.
1. The suppliers pre-qualification program can be the initiative of the owner

company or the design firm. The flowchart applies to both.
2. If both organizations (owner and designer) have an existing pre-qualification

program, a meeting is needed to aggregate both lists and align criteria
used.
Figure 3.5. Tool #11-B: Procedure: — Commentary on

Suppliers Pre-Qualification Procedure
Even if competitive bidding is still utilized and limited to two or three

preferred members, there are still benefits to the pre-qualification program that
will result in a shorter cycle time for obtaining certified supplier documentation.
53
Chapter 4:
Tools for Enhancing the Packaged Unit Process
Problems with Packaged Unit Process
Packaged unit process is the third major problem in the piping function.
Research has identified seven main issues concerning packaged units. The research
team has developed four recommendations that will address most of these issues.
Best practices have been identified for two of the issues.
Packaged Unit Supplier Quality Problems — Need for Tools
The research shows that packaged unit supplier quality suffers due to the
following problems:
• Insufficient packaged unit supplier engineering staff
• Complexity of packaged units
• Inexperienced packaged unit subsuppliers.
Tools for Improving Quality Problems:

Tools #12-A & #12-B: Procedure — Packaged Unit Supplier Pre-Qualification
Program
The problems mentioed above can be minimized by implementing a pre-

qualification program. The Packaged Unit Supplier Pre-Qualification program
(Figure 4.1) and its commentary (Figure 4.2) can be a stand-alone program or
structured as an extension to the Supplier Pre-Qualification program described in
Section 3.7.
Because packaged units are more complex than most plant equipment,
supplier engineering should be carefully monitored over and above the typical
review of product data and the final product. This program consists of establishing
a committee that develops evaluation criteria, and then evaluates packaged unit
suppliers based on those criteria.
55
Chapter 4: Tools for Enhancing the Packaged Unit Process
Establish a committee
to administer the program
Communicate goals
and objectives
Refrigeration Lube oil
Designate sub-committee Water Compressor

for different PU systems treatment
Vacuum jet Drying
Sub-committee creates a set of

criteria for joining and staying On-site rework
in the preferred PU supplier list
Equipment
delivery
timeliness
Owner Equipment
A/E Solicit information from quality
Contractor various sources Documentation
PU Supplier
quality
Sub-committee evaluates Documentation
PU suppliers timeliness
Price (market)
competitiveness
Periodic performance
Committee aggregates all evaluation update
information into one master
preferred PU suppliers list Update criteria
Sub-committee maintains list

of preferred PU suppliers
Issue to appropriate parties
Figure 4.1. Tool #12-A: Procedure — Packaged Unit (PU) Supplier

Pre-Qualification
56
1. The packaged unit suppliers pre-qualification program can be the initiative

of the owner company or the design firm. The flowchart applies to both.
2. If both organizations (owner and designer) have an existing pre-qualification

program, a meeting is needed to aggregate both lists and align criteria used.
3. The packaged unit supplier pre-qualification program can be structured as

an extension to the supplier pre-qualification program illustrated in Section
3.7.
Figure 4.2. Tool #12-B: Procedure — Commentary on Packaged Unit Suppliers

Pre-Qualification
This committee is responsible for:
• Keeping a list of preferred packaged unit suppliers based on their continued

good performance.
• Creating and maintaining a set of criteria for supplier performance.
• Monitoring supplier drawing quality and delivered product quality.
• Monitoring of the competitiveness of the packaged unit supplier quotes.
• Maintaining a “lessons learned” file for future reference.
The anticipated benefits of such program are:
• Improved packaged unit design and fabrication quality.
• Increased understanding of requirements between the supplier and the

designer.
• Reduction of designer team costs required to continuously monitor packaged

unit supplier performance and detailed review of product data.
• Reduction of design and field rework.
• Reduce data delivery time and improve overall production schedule.
• Reduction in inspection and expediting requirements.
• Potential cost reductions through value analysis efforts.
57
Packaged Unit Design Problems — Need for Tools
The following major problems and solution tools relate to packaged unit
design:
• Increased owner demand for customization
• Incomplete packaged unit inquiry specifications
• Lack of input from operations and maintenance personnel
• Unrealistic promises by packaged unit sales personnel
Tools for Improving Design Problems
After identifying the problems associated with packaged unit design, the
following tools can be used to improve the packaged unit design:
(1) Tool #13: Procedure — Customization/Specifications Meeting
(2) Tool #14: Procedure — Pre-Award Meeting with Packaged Unit

Suppliers (Bid Conditioning Meeting)
(3) Tool #15: New Role — Packaged Unit Coordinator
Tool #13: Procedure — Customization/Specifications Meeting
The issues of increased customization, incomplete inquiry specifications,

operation and maintenance personnel input, and sales personnel’s unrealistic
promises can be addressed and solved with the following recommendations:
A meeting between owner and designer teams prior to specification issuance

(see Figure 4.2) is recommended. This meeting should include:
• Owner personnel involved in writing or reviewing the performance

specifications package
• Owner operations and maintenance personnel (highly desirable)
• Owner process engineer
58
Participants
Specification Specification
package package
developers developers
Designer’s
Owner team
team
Process O&M Engineering
engineer personnel disciplines
representatives
Issues Addressed
Necessity of Redundancy of
customization specifications
Clarity of
specifications
Use of Unnecessary length
supplier standards of specifications
Expected Outcome
Maximum use of Clear, non-redundant

supplier standards specifications
Minimum Shortest possible

customization specifications
Figure 4.2. Tool #13: Procedure — Customization / Specifications Meeting
59
• Designer personnel involved in writing the specification package
• Designer representatives from each discipline involved in the packaged unit.
The purpose of this meeting is to reduce unnecessary customization

requirements and reduce specifications to only those that apply to the fabricated
packaged unit.
Tool #14: Procedure — Pre-award Meeting with Packaged Unit Suppliers

(Bid Conditioning Meeting)
Having a pre-award meeting with suppliers supplying major packaged units

(see Figure 4.3) is recommended. This meeting should include:
• Owner operation and maintenance personnel (necessary)
• Owner process engineer
• Designer personnel involved in writing the specification package
• Designer representatives from each discipline involved in the packaged unit.
• Designer expediter, requisitioning engineer, supplier drawing coordinator
• Packaged unit supplier engineer (in addition to the sales engineer).
The purpose of this meeting is to:
• Review the specifications package with the supplier and ensure full
understanding.
• Review all the clarifications and come to an agreement for every exception.
• Give operation and maintenance personnel an opportunity to emphasize

their needs.
• Explain to the packaged unit supplier what the supplier data requirements
are and when they are needed.
• Agree on the procedures of testing and inspection.
60
Participants
Specification
package
Process developers Sales
engineer engineer
Expediter
Requisitioning
and/or
engineer
Owners inspector Designer Packaged team
team team supplier team
O&M
Engineering Supplier Engineer(s)
personnel
disciplines drawing
representativers coordinator
Issues Addressed
Performance testing
O&M needs Inspection specifications
requirements
Type and quality of Specifications

Inspection participants
supplier documents clarifications/exceptions
Expected Outcome
Supplier agreement on
Full incorporation
documentation
of O&M needs
procedures and deadlines
Supplier’s full
understanding of
specifications package
Supplier understanding
Clarification of
of testing and inspection
all exceptions
procedures
Figure 4.3. Tool #14: Procedure — Pre-Award Meeting with

Packaged Unit Suppliers
61
Some additional questions that should be asked are:
• Are the necessary topics from an operations and maintenance standpoint

addressed properly?
• Is there enough room around and access to components that require

maintenance?
• What supplier documentation is required? (Drawings, parts list, manuals)
• Are written inspection specifications or procedures required?
• Have inspections and performance testing requirements been clearly

identified?
• Who will participate in inspections and performance testing?
Note:
It is standard practice (and good practice) to have a post-award meeting

between the designer team and the packaged unit supplier team prior to starting
detailed design. It is sometimes called a “kick-off meeting” and is usually held at
the packaged unit supplier’s shop.
The customization and pre-award meetings are not intended to take the place
of the kick-off meeting. This meeting is important because it introduces the owner
and designer teams to shop personnel, who will be responsible for the actual
packaged unit design and fabrication.
Tool #15: New Role — Packaged Units Coordinator
From 17 packaged unit case studies reviewed in detail by the research team,
the average direct field and engineering rework percentage was found to be 7.3
percent of the initial cost. It is thus cost effective to have a designated packaged
unit coordinator for all projects. Table 4.1 describes detailed information of this
new role.
62
Table 4.1. Tool #15: New Role — Packaged Units Coordinator
Title: Packaged Units Coordinator
Qualifications:
• Familiarity with all the disciplines involved (enough to be able to ask the
right questions)
• Ability to ask questions to all disciplines about the need for consistency
between the many reviews
Key Tasks:
• Coordinate between designers and packaged unit suppliers (requirements,
timing, etc.)
• Organize meetings whenever needed:
- Customization review
- Operations and Maintenance personnel input
- Pre-award meeting
• Review inquiry specifications for customization, conflicts and omissions
• Ensure that consistency remains when documents are reviewed by the

many engineering disciplines
• Monitor and update supplier performance for pre-qualification program
• Monitor and update subsupplier performance for pre-qualification

program
Prerequisite Policy:
The packaged unit coordinator needs to be given enough clout and
authority to impose a task or a deadline on all disciplines of engineering
involved in the packaged unit.
63
Chapter 5:
Conclusions
The piping function is the most costly and least efficient function within
industrial projects. Although research has shown that taking care of problems at
the early stage of the projects can be the most cost-effective approach, limited
research has been conducted related to the improvement of the piping function.
The CII Piping Function Research Team recognizes that too much uncertainty in
the piping engineering process is the primary reason for the inefficiency. The team
first identified 14 problematic piping issues, and then proceeded to develop
solutions. The following conclusions are offered by the research team:
1. Three areas that involve recurring uncertainty in the piping function are
P&IDs, supplier data, and packaged units.
2. The drivers leading to inefficient P&ID development are (1) lack of sequencing
and prioritization in the P&ID development process, (2) inefficient P&ID
development procedures and review checklists, and (3) inefficient
communication of P&ID uncertainty.
3. Major problems with supplier data are communication problems,

coordination problems, and supplier selection problems.
4. Supplier quality issues and design issues are two big problems in the
packaged units process.
5. The solution tools, categorized as policies, procedures, checklists, and roles,

are shown in Table 5.1 and are recommended to enhance the efficiency of the
piping function of industrial projects.
6. Research indicates that early input can greatly improve the performance of
projects. Lack of input from construction and operation/maintenance at the
early stage of projects is a main contributor to project uncertainty. Leading
companies are encouraging such input in order to minimize uncertainty in
the piping process.
65
Chapter 5: Conclusions
66
Table 5.1. Summary Listing of Solution Tools for Inefficient Piping Function (Page 1 of 2)
Drivers for Inefficient Solution Tools

Piping Function Policies Procedures Checklists Role
A) P&ID Development Process
- (Tool #2-A):
• Lack of Sequencing and - (Tool #1-A): **** ****
Owner Project Team
Prioritization Formation for Early Input Integrated P&ID Development
Flowchart
- (Tool #2-B):
Tactics for Overcoming - (Tool #1-B):
Barriers to Owner Project Information and Decisions for
Team Formation P&ID Development Stages
- (Tool #1-C):
Use of the Integrated P&ID
Development Flowchart
- (Tool #3): - (Tool #5):
• Inefficient P&ID - (Tool #6):
****
Pre-P&ID Information List P&ID
Development and Responsibility Assignment Chart Review
- (Tool #4): for P&ID Development
Review Procedure Checklist
P&ID Standardization List
and its Use
- (Tool #7):
Strategies for Avoiding
Artificially Frozen P&IDs
Table 5.1. Summary Listing of Solution Tools for Inefficient Piping Function (Page 2 of 2)
Drivers for Inefficient Solution Tools

Piping Function Policies Procedures Checklists Role
A) P&ID Development Process (continued)
• Inefficient **** - Tool #8-A): **** ****
A Hold with Notes
Communication of
- (Tool #8-B):
P&ID Uncertainties
A Hold with an Action Code
B) P&ID Supplier Data Process

• Communication **** - (Tool #9-A and #9-B): **** ****
Pre-Printed Supplier Data
Problems Request Form
- (Tool #10):
• Coordination Problems Supplier Data Coordination
Meetings
• Supplier Selection - (Tool #11-A and #11-B):

Supplier Pre-Qualification
Duration Problems Program
Chapter 5: Conclusions
67
References
Barnes, J. Wesley. Statistical Analysis for Engineers and Scientists — A

Computer-Based Approach. McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994, p. 147.
Chalabi, A. Fattah, Beaudin, Briand J., and Salazar, Guillermo F. Input

Variables Impacting Design Effectiveness. Worcester Polytechnic Institute,
Construction Industry Institute Source Document 26. April 1987.
Construction Technology Needs and Priorities. The Business Roundtable,

Construction Industry Cost Effectiveness (CICE) Project Report B-3.
New York, N.Y., 1982.
Crooker, S. “Hierarchy of Design Documents,” Piping Handbook, 6th edition,

editor: M. L. Nayyar, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1992, B-3~B-18.
Deutsch, D. J. Process Piping Systems. McGraw Hill Book Company, New

York, N.Y., 1980.
Escoe, A. Keith. Mechanical Design of Process System. Gulf Publishing

Company, Book Division, Houston, Texas, 1994.
Gibson, G. E., Kaczmarowski, Jerome H., and Lore, H. Edgar, Jr. Modeling
Pre-Project Planning for the Construction of Capital Facilities. The
University of Texas at Austin. Construction Industry Institute Source
Document 94. July 1993.
Gibson, G. E., Dumont, P. Project Definition Rating Index (PDRI) for

Capital Facilities. The University of Texas at Austin. Construction Industry
Institute Research Report 113-11. December 1995.
Guidelines for Preparation of Engineering Flow Diagrams. Monsanto Company

internal document. Revised by W. G. Kramper, Industrial Products
Process Engineering, 1994, p. 9.
Hartman, W., Williams, F. Pipe Drafting. McGraw Hill Book Company. New
York, N.Y., 1981
Henley, E. J., Kumamoto H. Probabilistic Risk Assessment: Reliability,

Engineering, Design and Analysis. The Institute of Electrical and
Electronics Engineering Inc. Press, New York, 1992.
Kentish, D. N. W. Industrial Pipework. McGraw Hill Book Company (UK)

Limited. London, UK, 1982.
69
References
Kletz, T. A. What Went Wrong? Case Histories of Process Plant Disasters.

Second edition. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, Texas, 1988.
Levinson, W. A. The Way of Strategy. ASQC Quality Press, Milwaukee,

Wisconsin, 1994.
Luckiewicz, E. T. & Sandler, H. J. Practical Process Engineering — A

Working Approach to Plant Design. McGraw-Hill Book Company, N.Y.,
1987, 1-67, 68-108.
Matlack, W. F. Statistics for Public Managers. F. E. Peacock Publishers, Inc,

Itasca, Illinois, 1993, p. 134.
Mansfield, Scott. Engineering Design for Process Facilities. McGraw-Hill

Inc. New York, N.Y., 1993.
Mendel, Otto. Practical Piping Handbook. PennWell Publishing Company,

Tulsa, Oklahoma, 1981.
Nayyar, Mohinder L. Piping Handbook. McGraw Hill, Inc. New York, N.Y.,
1992.
O’Connor, James T. Optimization of the piping function — A proposal to the

Construction Industry Institute. The University of Texas at Austin. Sept.
1, 1993.
O’Connor, James T. and Gatton, T. M. Development of a virtual environment

for constructability decision support — A Proposal to National Science
Foundation. The University of Texas at Austin. Apr. 23, 1993.
O’Connor, James T. and Goucha, Hatem Y. Improving Industrial Piping

through Supplier Data and Packaged Units Processes. The University of
Texas at Austin, Construction Industry Institute Research Report 47-11.
April 1996.
O’Connor, James T. and Liao, Shih-Jen. Piping Function Reference File — A

Collection of Research Papers on Piping Construction. Internal document,
The University of Texas at Austin. January 1994.
O’Connor, James T. and Liao, Shih-Jen. Enhancement of the Piping and

Instrumentation Diagram Development Process. The University of Texas
at Austin, Construction Industry Institute Research Report 47-12. August
1996.
70
References
P&ID Development. Internal document, Rust Engineering Company, March

1992.
Page, S. B. Business Policies and Procedures Handbook. Prentice-Hall, Inc.,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1984.
Paulson, Boyd., Jr. “Design to Reduce Construction Costs,” Journal of the

Construction Division, ASCE, Vol. 102, No. C04, December 1976, 587-
592.
Piping: Improving P&IDs, Supplier Data, and Packaged Units. The University
of Texas at Austin, Construction Industry Institute Research Summary
47-1. December 1996.
Scott, D. & Crawley, F. Process Plant Design and Operation. Institute of

Chemical Engineers, Rugby, Warwickshire, UK, 1992.
Scott, R. Process Design Case Studies. Institute of Chemical Engineers,

Rugby, Warwickshire, UK, 1992.
“Total Effort Graphs.” Dow Chemical Company. Research mail from Bill
Olmsted to Shih-Jen Liao, February, 15, 1995.
Townsend, A. Maintenance of Process Plant. Institute of Chemical Engineers,

Rugby, Warwickshire, UK, 1992.
Voeller, J. G. Special Reprint from the Nov. ’94 issue of The A-E-C Automation
Newsletter highlighting the efforts of PlantSTEP Inc., Technology
Publications Inc., Atlanta, Georgia, 1994, p. 3.
Weaver, Rip. Process Piping Design. Gulf Publishing Company, Book Division,
Houston, Texas, 1986.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary. G. & C. Merriam Company, Springfield,

Massachusetts, 1981.
71
Notes
72
Notes
73
Piping Function Research Team
Jerry D. Byers, Mobil Research & Development Corp.

John C. Cato, H. B. Zachry Company
Russell Conda, John Brown
Thomas W. DeBoise, Texaco
David R. George, Monsanto Co.
James D. Gregg, Bechtel Construction Co.
Garry W. Hart, Cherne Contracting Corp.
Gregory A. Howell, University of New Mexico
Thomas G. Martin, Commonwealth Construction Co.
Douglas C. Miles, Rust International Corp.
* James T. O’Connor, The University of Texas at Austin
Robert A. Popelmayer, MK-Ferguson Group
William A. Ryan, Belcan Engineering Group, Inc.
D. W. Stojanik, Hoechst Celanese
William G. Travers, Stone & Webster Engineering Corp., Chairman
* Principal Author
Editor: Rusty Haggard

CII Member Companies
Air Force Center for Environmental ABB Lummus Global Inc.
Excellence Guy F. Atkinson Company of California
Aluminum Company of America BE&K, Inc.
Amoco Corporation Bechtel Group, Inc.
Anheuser-Busch Companies, Inc. Belcan Engineering Group, Inc.
Aramco Services Company Black & Veatch
Atlantic Richfield Company BMW Constructors, Inc.
Bayer Corporation Brown & Root, Inc.
Champion International Corporation Bufete Industrial
Chevron Corporation Burns and Roe Enterprises, Inc.
CITGO Petroleum Corporation Cherne Contracting Corporation
Commonwealth Edison Company Cianbro Corporation
Consolidated Edison Company Day & Zimmermann International, Inc.
of New York, Inc. Dillingham Construction Holdings Inc.
Dow Chemical U.S.A. Eichleay Holdings Inc.
DuPont Fluor Daniel, Inc.
Eastman Chemical Company Foster Wheeler USA Corporation
Enron Corporation Fru-Con Corporation
Exxon Research & Engineering Company James N. Gray Construction Company, Inc.
General Electric Corporation Graycor, Inc.
General Motors Corporation Hilti Corporation
Glaxo Wellcome Inc. Honeywell, Inc.
Hoechst Celanese Corporation International Technology Corporation
Houston Lighting & Power Company Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc.
Intel Corporation J. A. Jones Inc.
James River Corporation The M. W. Kellogg Company
Eli Lilly and Company Kiewit Construction Group, Inc.
Merck & Co., Inc. Kvaerner-John Brown
Mobil Corporation Marshall Contractors, Inc.
Monsanto Company Morrison Knudsen Corporation
NASA M. A. Mortenson Company
Naval Facilities Engineering Command Murphy Company
Ontario Hydro North Bros. Company
Phillips Petroleum Company The Parsons Corporation
The Procter & Gamble Company Rust International Corporation
Rohm and Haas Company S&B Engineers and Constructors Ltd.
Shell Oil Company Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation
Sun Company, Inc. Sverdrup Corporation
Tennessee Valley Authority Technology Design & Construction Company
Texaco TPA, Inc.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Woodward-Clyde Consultants
U.S. Department of Commerce H. B. Zachry Company
U.S. Department of State
U.S. Generating Company
U.S. Steel
Union Carbide Corporation
Weyerhaeuser Paper Company
Bureau of Engineering Research
The University of Texas at Austin

CII Piping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

CII Piping

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CII Piping

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Tools

for Enhancing the Piping Engineering Process

Construction Industry Institute

Not printed with state funds

Construction Industry Institute

Piping Function Research Team

Implementation Resource 47-2

Reviewed by CII 23Jun04

The University of Texas at Austin.

Printed in the United States of America.

Executive Summary ............................................................................................. v

List of Figures .................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ...................................................................................................... ix

Chapter 1: Introduction ...................................................................................... 1

Chapter 2: Tools for Enhancing the P&ID Development Process ..................... 7

Chapter 3: Tools for Enhancing the Supplier Data Process ............................. 41

Chapter 4: Tools for Enhancing the Packaged Units Process .......................... 55

Chapter 5: Conclusions ..................................................................................... 65

The piping function is frequently inefficient. Previous research indicates that

The major causes for this inefficiency pertain to engineering development

Figure 4.3: Tool #13: Procedure — Customization/ Specification Meeting .. 59

Figure 4.4: Tool #14: Procedure — Pre-Award Meeting with Packaged

Table 1.1: Research Scope Definition .............................................................. 4

In 1993, the Construction Industry Institute chartered the Piping Function

Major Problems in Piping Functions

Piping and Instrumentation Diagrams

Block Flow Process Flow Detailed Procurement

Construction Punch Out Commissioning Operations/

Figure 1.1. Flowchart for Industrial Plant Engineering and Construction

P&ID is an acronym for the following technical terms: Piping and

• Re-design of piping interfaces and/or transitions

• Misfabrication of pipe spools

• Rework of pipe spools at the fabrication shop

• On-line piping rework and on-site piping rerouting.

A packaged unit is a self-contained system consisting of various pieces of

Research Objectives and Scope

Table 1.1. Research Scope Definition

Type of Projects Industrial Projects:

Nature of Projects • New Projects

Location of Projects U.S.

• A predetermined course of action established as a guide toward accepted

• A policy reflects an overall organizational purpose and provides a long-range

• A series of steps followed in a regular definite order.

• A series of instructions for a computer that has a name by which it can be

• A procedure lays out a serious of steps or instructions for performing a

• A checklist presents desirable items and allows engineers to check their

• A role is a functional position created in an organization to perform a

Drivers and Causes of Inefficient P&ID Development Process

• Lack of sequencing and prioritization in the P&ID development process.

• Inefficient P&ID development procedures and review checklists.

• Inefficient communication of P&ID uncertainty.

Inefficient Sequencing and Prioritization in the P&ID Development Process —

Lack of sequencing and prioritization is the primary driver that leads to

• Lack of timely input from multi-discipline, operations, maintenance, safety,

• Lack of coordination both within and outside the project team

• Incomplete or untimely P&ID reviews

• Incomplete, or uncoordinated P&IDs

• Numerous “holds” on P&IDs