Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract The ever-increasing fast paced economy brings the need for faster project development and construction. This has led to a term known as "fast-tracked projects" in which the schedule is reduced by shortening and overlapping the design, procurement and construction phases. The objective of this paper will be to provide a practical guideline to project managers and engineers who have been tasked with executing a fast-track project, with particular focus on brownfield projects in the process industry. The scope will cover project management and engineering for fast-track projects, during the concept to detailed design phases. The approach to the paper starts with a literature review of past journal research published on fast-tracked projects and review of the experiences that Hatch has had with fast-tracked projects. Case studies have been prepared, to highlight project management and engineering decisions which succeeded in accelerating the schedule. Pitfalls and recommendations will be identified and future tools to aid fast-track projects will be discussed. The results of analysis of historical vendor quotations and procurement show typical lead times for equipment and materials, allowing engineers to identify long lead equipment and items which need early focus. Observations from the case studies have shown that success in fast-track projects involves setting a fixed basis of design early in the project and making key project scoping decisions as early as possible in the project to minimise changes. Observations have been made on historical projects and how many of the key fast-track practices (from the literature review) were implemented as part of successful fast-tracking; lessons learned and recommendations have been shared in the paper. Observations have also been made about projects which attempted to fast-track by removing of project stage decision gates and/or jumping design stages, which then led to increased re-work/change scope. The cost-quality-schedule of a project can be represented as the three corners of a triangle, which are key drivers on a project. The main conclusion is that the Project Manager and Engineering Teams must plan carefully and have buy-in from all key stakeholders in the project from an early stage on all the key decisions, otherwise one portion of the cost-quality-schedule triangle will always fall behind the others, with the most concerning one being quality, as it is often linked to safety. Clients may have to accept a feasible, fit for purpose design, rather than an optimised design in order to meet a fast-track schedule. There are currently limited engineering guidelines for how to execute the design of a fast-track project. The paper provides additive information in the form of case study examples, practical engineering guidance for the process industry and identifying new technologies, which may aid fast-track projects in the future.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,032 | 0,079 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,005 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,014 | 0,016 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,007 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,026 | 0,018 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».