Доступ запрещен
Вы будете автоматически перенаправлены.
traineeavatar
labs01database
| Page ID (x-y-z) | Page Title Page Sub Title | Expert Full Name | Expert Position | Expert Color | Expert Avatar URL | Expert Role | MiniChat Dialogue | Trainee Note | Test 1 Case Description | Test 1 Question | Test 1 Options | Test 1 Correct Answer | Test 1 Why Correct | Test 2 Case Description | Test 2 Question | Test 2 Options | Test 2 Correct Answer | Test 2 Why Correct | Test 3 Case Description | Test 3 Question | Test 3 Options | Test 3 Correct Answer | Test 3 Why Correct | Way #1 | Way #2 | Way #3 | Way #4 |
| 1-2-1 | PO / Contracts — design change impact Rule: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | David Peterson | Chief Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/David-Peterson.bmp | David Peterson is the Chief Engineer in the Engineering Department. He is concerned about the impact of uncommunicated design changes on the project timeline and is trying to mediate the conflict between Procurement and Construction. | In Procurement they flagged that the Vendor Data is not aligned with BOM. From Engineering side, ignoring this multiplies rework in Engineering and breaks document consistency. I can attach QA/CoC; will your team support coordination on your side? Ensure version integrity: include rev log and links to affected documents. Once applied, Engineering avoids redesign churn and we stabilize the document set. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. | Vendor Data: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Procurement flagged the Vendor Data around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What must be true for the Vendor Data to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. B) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. C) Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. D) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. | C | Correct because: Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. Other options are incorrect because: - A) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - B) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - D) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. | Procurement reports the Vendor Data is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 15 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 6 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. B) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈11 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~2 days; coordinate resequence by 1 days with Engineering. C) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. D) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 15 days and let Engineering absorb ~24 hours idle time. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 15→≈11 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Vendor Data and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Engineering window starts in ~65 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency B) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later C) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines D) start expediting for critical lines, flag the site window to stakeholders, get vendor confirmation, and update the PO/spec reference; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-2 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. | 3-1-2 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when P&ID must be updated. Key point: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. | 4-1-2 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 5-1-2 Go to Project Management Dep. Go here to address planning dependency. Rule of thumb: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. |
| 1-2-3 | Materials — design change impact Rule: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | David Peterson | Chief Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/David-Peterson.bmp | David Peterson is the Chief Engineer in the Engineering Department. He is concerned about the impact of uncommunicated design changes on the project timeline and is trying to mediate the conflict between Procurement and Construction. | In Procurement they flagged that the QA/CoC Dossier is not aligned with BOM. With Engineering constraints, if we defer it, Construction will inherit rework and version noise. I can launch expediting for critical items; will your team support coordination on your side? Make it traceable: reference revisions, calculation notes, and cross-links to P&ID/BOM. It allows Construction to proceed with the planned front of work. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | QA/CoC Dossier: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. Insight: Lead times are contractual; expediting without scope clarity burns buffers. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Procurement flagged the QA/CoC Dossier around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What is correct about the QA/CoC Dossier in an EPC context? | A) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. B) QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. C) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. D) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. | B | Correct because: QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. | Procurement reports the QA/CoC Dossier is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 26 days; the site window for Construction work is in 4 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈24 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~1 days; coordinate resequence by 0 days with Construction. B) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 26 days and let Construction absorb ~8 hours idle time. C) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. D) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 26→≈24 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the QA/CoC Dossier and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Construction window starts in ~55 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later B) flag the site window to stakeholders, start expediting for critical lines, get vendor confirmation, and update the PO/spec reference; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency D) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines | B | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-2 Go to Procurement Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Tech Spec: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. | 3-1-2 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when P&ID must be updated. Key point: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. | 4-1-2 Go to Operation Dep. To proceed with Reports safely, remember: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 5-1-2 Go to Project Management Dep. Go here to address planning dependency. Rule of thumb: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. |
| 1-2-4 | Equipments — design change impact Rule: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Emily White | Senior Designer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Emily-White.bmp | Emily White is a Senior Designer in the Engineering Department. She is trying to help Procurement finalize vendor selection for Operations, but she is concerned that the initial requirements from Operation are too vague. | From Procurement we heard the Vendor Data needs attention — out-of-sync with the latest revision. From Engineering side, ignoring this multiplies rework in Operation and breaks document consistency. I can attach QA/CoC; will your team support coordination on your side? Ensure version integrity: include rev log and links to affected documents. This keeps Operation within safe limits and ready for startup. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. | Vendor Data: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Procurement flagged the Vendor Data around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What must be true for the Vendor Data to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. B) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. C) Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. D) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. | C | Correct because: Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. Other options are incorrect because: - A) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. | Procurement reports the Vendor Data is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 22 days; the site window for Operation work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~3 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. B) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈19 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~2 days; coordinate resequence by 1 days with Operation. C) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 22 days and let Operation absorb ~8 hours idle time. D) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 22→≈19 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Vendor Data and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Operation window starts in ~47 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines B) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency C) start expediting for critical lines, get vendor confirmation, flag the site window to stakeholders, and update the PO/spec reference; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later | C | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-2 Go to Procurement Dep. When next step is about Tech Spec, apply: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. | 3-1-2 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when P&ID must be updated. Key point: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. | 4-1-2 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 5-1-2 Go to Project Management Dep. When next step is about BIM/DT, apply: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. |
| 1-2-5 | Tools — design change impact Rule: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Alexei Petrov | Head of Engineering | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alexei-Petrov.bmp | Alexei Petrov, the Head of Engineering, is a veteran engineer known for his meticulous approach. He believes in doing things right the first time and is frustrated with the unrealistic expectations set by other departments, which lead to rushed work and conflicts. | From Procurement we heard the Equipment Package needs attention — out-of-sync with the latest revision. If Engineering does not act now, Project Management will face avoidable redesign and sync churn. I can update the PO reference; will your team support coordination on your side? Keep interfaces explicit: note the impacted tags and connection points. This preserves Project Management schedule integrity and KPIs. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. | Equipment Package: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. Insight: POs fail without explicit spec revision; vendor 'equivalents' require documented approval. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Procurement flagged the Equipment Package around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Equipment Package? | A) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. B) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. C) An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. D) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. | C | Correct because: An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. Other options are incorrect because: - A) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. | Procurement reports the Equipment Package is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 11 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 9 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈3 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~2 days; coordinate resequence by 2 days with Project Management. B) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. C) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. D) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 11 days and let Project Management absorb ~20 hours idle time. | A | Correct because it meets the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 11→≈3 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Equipment Package and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Project Management window starts in ~42 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency B) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines C) flag the site window to stakeholders, start expediting for critical lines, update the PO/spec reference, and get vendor confirmation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later | C | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-2 Go to Procurement Dep. To proceed with Tech Spec safely, remember: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. | 3-1-2 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about P&ID, apply: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. | 4-1-2 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 5-1-2 Go to Project Management Dep. If the blocker is planning dependency, this node applies: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. |
| 1-3-1 | Method Statement — design change impact Rule: Material traceability maintained through installation. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | James Harrison | Lead Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/James-Harrison.bmp | In this scenario, James Harrison from Engineering is the expert. He is concerned about the impact of Construction's delay on the project documentation. | In Construction they flagged that the Method Statement is missing calculation references. If Engineering does not act now, Engineering will face avoidable redesign and sync churn. I can record as-built changes; will your team support coordination on your side? Ensure version integrity: include rev log and links to affected documents. It lets Engineering keep design clean and synced across artifacts. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. | Method Statement: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. Insight: ITP hold points prevent silent failures; approvals must precede works. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Construction flagged the Method Statement around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What must be true for the Method Statement to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. B) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. C) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. D) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. | A | Correct because: The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. Other options are incorrect because: - B) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the Method Statement is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 24 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 11 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. B) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~3 days and rely on field checks. C) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 24 days; fix NCRs later. D) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈18 days); resequence by 0 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~3 days). | D | Correct because it best approaches the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 24→≈18 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Method Statement and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Engineering window starts in ~34 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) record as-built changes as needed, coordinate resequencing with site, set hold points and prerequisites, and update the Method Statement/ITP; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later C) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-3 Go to Procurement Dep. If you need P&ID aligned: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. | 3-1-3 Go to Construction Dep. If the blocker is constructability clash, this node applies: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 4-1-3 Go to Operation Dep. When next step is about BIM/DT, apply: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 5-1-3 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with Drawings safely, remember: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. |
| 1-3-2 | Installation — design change impact Rule: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Sarah Chen | Construction Manager | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Chen.bmp | Sarah Chen is the Construction Manager. She believes in clear communication and is frustrated with the constant miscommunication between Engineering and Procurement, which is causing delays on her site. | From Construction we heard the Installation Plan needs attention — impacted by a design change. With Engineering constraints, if we defer it, Procurement will inherit rework and version noise. I can update the ITP with hold points; will your team support coordination on your side? Keep interfaces explicit: note the impacted tags and connection points. This lets Procurement place correct orders and hold logistics windows. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | Installation Plan: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. Insight: As‑built records create traceability; they aren't optional paperwork. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Construction flagged the Installation Plan around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Installation Plan? | A) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. B) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. C) As-built records are unnecessary if drawings exist. D) Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. | D | Correct because: Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. Other options are incorrect because: - A) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - B) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the Installation Plan is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 14 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. B) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈9 days); resequence by 2 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~2 days). C) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~2 days and rely on field checks. D) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 14 days; fix NCRs later. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 14→≈9 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Installation Plan and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Procurement window starts in ~71 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) set hold points and prerequisites, coordinate resequencing with site, update the Method Statement/ITP, and record as-built changes as needed; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay C) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward D) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-3 Go to Procurement Dep. If you need P&ID aligned: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. | 3-1-3 Go to Construction Dep. Go here to address constructability clash. Rule of thumb: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 4-1-3 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on BIM/DT, follow the rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 5-1-3 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on Drawings, follow the rule: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. |
| 1-3-4 | Testing (ITP) — design change impact Rule: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is a Site Foreman in the Construction Department. He is frustrated with the constant errors in the blueprints he receives from Engineering, which he believes is a direct result of vague requirements from Operation. | In Construction they flagged that the Installation Plan is missing calculation references. With Engineering constraints, if we defer it, Operation will inherit rework and version noise. I can update the ITP with hold points; will your team support coordination on your side? Make it traceable: reference revisions, calculation notes, and cross-links to P&ID/BOM. It gives Operation clear SOPs and acceptance criteria. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | Installation Plan: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. Insight: Method Statement encodes safe sequence and access; it's not 'tribal knowledge'. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Construction flagged the Installation Plan around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What is correct about the Installation Plan in an EPC context? | A) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. B) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. C) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. D) Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. | D | Correct because: Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. Other options are incorrect because: - A) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - B) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the Installation Plan is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 20 days; the site window for Operation work is in 8 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈16 days); resequence by 0 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~2 days). B) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~2 days and rely on field checks. C) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 20 days; fix NCRs later. D) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 20→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Installation Plan and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Operation window starts in ~24 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) update the Method Statement/ITP, set hold points and prerequisites, record as-built changes as needed, and coordinate resequencing with site; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later C) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay D) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-3 Go to Procurement Dep. Prefer this path when P&ID must be updated. Key point: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. | 3-1-3 Go to Construction Dep. To proceed with Reports safely, remember: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 4-1-3 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on BIM/DT, follow the rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 5-1-3 Go to Project Management Dep. Go here to address planning dependency. Rule of thumb: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. |
| 1-3-5 | Logistics — design change impact Rule: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is a Site Foreman in the Construction Department. He is frustrated with the constant errors in the blueprints he receives from Engineering, which he believes is a direct result of vague requirements from Operation. | In Construction they flagged that the ITP (Testing) is missing calculation references. With Engineering constraints, if we defer it, Project Management will inherit rework and version noise. I can prepare site access and prerequisites; will your team support coordination on your side? Keep interfaces explicit: note the impacted tags and connection points. It gives Project Management a clean milestone path and transparent risk picture. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | ITP (Testing): context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. Insight: As‑built records create traceability; they aren't optional paperwork. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Construction flagged the ITP (Testing) around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | Which statement best describes good practice for the ITP (Testing)? | A) An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. B) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. C) ITP is interchangeable with Method Statement; either one is enough. D) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. | A | Correct because: An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. | Construction reports the ITP (Testing) is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 21 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 7 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. B) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~2 days and rely on field checks. C) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈16 days); resequence by 3 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~2 days). D) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 21 days; fix NCRs later. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 21→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the ITP (Testing) and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Project Management window starts in ~44 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) coordinate resequencing with site, record as-built changes as needed, update the Method Statement/ITP, and set hold points and prerequisites; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later C) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-3 Go to Procurement Dep. To proceed with P&ID safely, remember: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. | 3-1-3 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about Reports, apply: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 4-1-3 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on BIM/DT, follow the rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 5-1-3 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on Drawings, follow the rule: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. |
| 1-4-1 | Operating Limits — design change impact Rule: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | James Harrison | Lead Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/James-Harrison.bmp | James Harrison is the Lead Engineer in the Engineering Department. He is frustrated with the constant errors in the blueprints he receives from Engineering, which he believes is a direct result of vague requirements from Operation. | Operation just noted the Operating Limits: missing calculation references. From Engineering side, ignoring this multiplies rework in Engineering and breaks document consistency. I can confirm maintenance access; will your team support coordination on your side? Make it traceable: reference revisions, calculation notes, and cross-links to P&ID/BOM. Once applied, Engineering avoids redesign churn and we stabilize the document set. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. | Operating Limits: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. Insight: Handover needs a complete, verified dossier — no partial acceptance. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Operation flagged the Operating Limits around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What is correct about the Operating Limits in an EPC context? | A) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. B) Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. C) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. D) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. | B | Correct because: Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Operation reports the Operating Limits is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 20 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~20 hours. B) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. C) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈16 days) and allow Engineering resequencing by 0 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). D) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 20→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Operating Limits and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Engineering window starts in ~29 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) update SOP/limits, gate with PTW/LOTO, release a startup readiness note, and confirm acceptance criteria with Operation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later C) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start D) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup | A | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-4 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 3-1-4 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when BIM/DT must be updated. Key point: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 4-1-4 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on Drawings, follow the rule: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. | 5-1-4 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Tech Spec: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. |
| 1-4-2 | Permits — design change impact Rule: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Robert Davis | Operations Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Robert-Davis.bmp | Robert Davis is the Operations Manager. He is cautious about approving documentation from Construction before it has been finalized by Engineering. He is concerned that a delay in the Construction-Engineering transaction could affect the project's long-term viability. | In Operation they flagged that the Operating Limits is showing an interface clash. From Engineering side, ignoring this multiplies rework in Procurement and breaks document consistency. I can confirm maintenance access; will your team support coordination on your side? Keep interfaces explicit: note the impacted tags and connection points. It helps Procurement maintain PO accuracy and lead times. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. | Operating Limits: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. Insight: LOTO and permits are 'go/no‑go' gates; shortcuts surface as incidents later. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Operation flagged the Operating Limits around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Operating Limits? | A) Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. B) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. C) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. D) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. | A | Correct because: Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the Operating Limits is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 11 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~3 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈8 days) and allow Procurement resequencing by 1 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). B) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~12 hours. C) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. D) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. | A | Correct because it meets the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 11→≈8 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Operating Limits and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Procurement window starts in ~58 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start B) confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, gate with PTW/LOTO, update SOP/limits, and release a startup readiness note; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup D) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later | B | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-4 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 3-1-4 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about BIM/DT, apply: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 4-1-4 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. | 5-1-4 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with Tech Spec safely, remember: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. |
| 1-4-3 | Handover Package — design change impact Rule: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | David Peterson | Chief Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/David-Peterson.bmp | David Peterson is the Chief Engineer in the Engineering Department. He is concerned about the impact of uncommunicated design changes on the project timeline and is trying to mediate the conflict between Procurement and Construction. | Operation escalated the O&M Manual; impacted by a design change. If Engineering does not act now, Construction will face avoidable redesign and sync churn. I can issue permits/LOTO; will your team support coordination on your side? Make it traceable: reference revisions, calculation notes, and cross-links to P&ID/BOM. It enables Construction to keep sequence and avoid rework on site. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. | O&M Manual: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Insight: Handover needs a complete, verified dossier — no partial acceptance. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Operation flagged the O&M Manual around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What is correct about the O&M Manual in an EPC context? | A) O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. B) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. C) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. D) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. | A | Correct because: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Other options are incorrect because: - B) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the O&M Manual is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 16 days; the site window for Construction work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. B) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. C) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~20 hours. D) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈11 days) and allow Construction resequencing by 3 days; keep approvals formal (~1 days). | D | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 16→≈11 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the O&M Manual and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Construction window starts in ~26 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start B) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later C) release a startup readiness note, confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, gate with PTW/LOTO, and update SOP/limits; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup | C | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-4 Go to Procurement Dep. If you need Reports aligned: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 3-1-4 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on BIM/DT: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 4-1-4 Go to Operation Dep. If you need Drawings aligned: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. | 5-1-4 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on Tech Spec, follow the rule: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. |
| 1-4-5 | Operating Procedures — design change impact Rule: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Alexei Volkov | Senior Project Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alexei-Volkov.bmp | Alexei Volkov is a Senior Project Engineer in the Engineering Department. He is concerned that Project Management's new timelines and deliverables are not feasible and will negatively impact Construction. He is trying to push back on the new plan to prevent future issues. | Operation just noted the O&M Manual: missing calculation references. From Engineering side, ignoring this multiplies rework in Project Management and breaks document consistency. I can issue permits/LOTO; will your team support coordination on your side? Keep interfaces explicit: note the impacted tags and connection points. It helps Project Management align dependencies and communications. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. | O&M Manual: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Insight: LOTO and permits are 'go/no‑go' gates; shortcuts surface as incidents later. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Operation flagged the O&M Manual around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | Which statement best describes good practice for the O&M Manual? | A) O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. B) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. C) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. D) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. | A | Correct because: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Operation reports the O&M Manual is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 11 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 11 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. B) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈3 days) and allow Project Management resequencing by 1 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). C) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~8 hours. D) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. | B | Correct because it meets the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 11→≈3 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the O&M Manual and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Project Management window starts in ~64 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup B) release a startup readiness note, gate with PTW/LOTO, update SOP/limits, and confirm acceptance criteria with Operation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later D) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start | B | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-4 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on Reports, follow the rule: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. | 3-1-4 Go to Construction Dep. If you need BIM/DT aligned: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 4-1-4 Go to Operation Dep. Prefer this path when Drawings must be updated. Key point: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. | 5-1-4 Go to Project Management Dep. When next step is about Tech Spec, apply: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. |
| 1-5-1 | Risk Register — design change impact Rule: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | James Harrison | Lead Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/James-Harrison.bmp | James Harrison is the Lead Engineer in the Engineering Department. He is frustrated with Project Management's new, overly complex process, which he believes is hindering progress and creating new bottlenecks. | Heads-up from Project Management: the Integrated Schedule is impacted by a design change. With Engineering constraints, if we defer it, Engineering will inherit rework and version noise. I can revise the Work Package; will your team support coordination on your side? Keep interfaces explicit: note the impacted tags and connection points. This unblocks Engineering to proceed without version noise. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | Integrated Schedule: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. Insight: Work Package = scope + dependencies + resources + DoD; otherwise dates are fiction. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Project Management flagged the Integrated Schedule around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Integrated Schedule? | A) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. B) The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. C) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. D) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. | B | Correct because: The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Integrated Schedule is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 11 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈3 days; book a 1-day resequence for Engineering; run change control/approvals (~2 days) and notify stakeholders. B) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~24 hours of idle time when the window is missed. C) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. D) Shift the milestone by 2 days without logging risks or changes. | A | Correct because it meets the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 11→≈3 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Integrated Schedule and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Engineering window starts in ~66 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders B) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk C) notify stakeholders, update the risk register, log the change (CO/ECN link), and revise the Work Package/schedule; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change | C | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-5 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on BIM/DT, follow the rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 3-1-5 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about Drawings, apply: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. | 4-1-5 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. | 5-1-5 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on P&ID: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. |
| 1-5-2 | Change Order — design change impact Rule: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Robert Harris | Senior Project Coordinator | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Robert-Harris.bmp | Robert Harris is a Senior Project Coordinator in the Engineering Department. He is frustrated with Project Management's new, overly complex process, which he believes is hindering progress and creating new bottlenecks. | Project Management escalated the Integrated Schedule; not aligned with BOM. With Engineering constraints, if we defer it, Procurement will inherit rework and version noise. I can revise the Work Package; will your team support coordination on your side? Ensure version integrity: include rev log and links to affected documents. This lets Procurement place correct orders and hold logistics windows. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Close by notifying the site/ops leads so they can plan accordingly. | Integrated Schedule: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. Insight: Risk register without owners is a wish list; contingencies need triggers. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Project Management flagged the Integrated Schedule around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | What must be true for the Integrated Schedule to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. B) The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. C) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. D) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. | B | Correct because: The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Integrated Schedule is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 20 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~7 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. B) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈13 days; book a 0-day resequence for Procurement; run change control/approvals (~2 days) and notify stakeholders. C) Shift the milestone by 10 days without logging risks or changes. D) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~8 hours of idle time when the window is missed. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 20→≈13 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Integrated Schedule and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Procurement window starts in ~65 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders B) revise the Work Package/schedule, update the risk register, log the change (CO/ECN link), and notify stakeholders; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk D) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change | B | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-5 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 3-1-5 Go to Construction Dep. If the blocker is constructability clash, this node applies: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. | 4-1-5 Go to Operation Dep. To proceed with Tech Spec safely, remember: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. | 5-1-5 Go to Project Management Dep. If you need P&ID aligned: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. |
| 1-5-3 | Comm Plan — design change impact Rule: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Alexei Volkov | Senior Project Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alexei-Volkov.bmp | Alexei Volkov is a Senior Project Engineer in the Engineering Department. He is concerned that Project Management's new timelines and deliverables are not feasible and will negatively impact Construction. He is trying to push back on the new plan to prevent future issues. | Heads-up from Project Management: the Change Order is impacted by a design change. If Engineering does not act now, Construction will face avoidable redesign and sync churn. I can log the change request; will your team support coordination on your side? Ensure version integrity: include rev log and links to affected documents. It enables Construction to keep sequence and avoid rework on site. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. | Change Order: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. Insight: Risk register without owners is a wish list; contingencies need triggers. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Project Management flagged the Change Order around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What must be true for the Change Order to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. B) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. C) A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. D) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. | C | Correct because: A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Change Order is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 14 days; the site window for Construction work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. B) Shift the milestone by 2 days without logging risks or changes. C) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈12 days; book a 1-day resequence for Construction; run change control/approvals (~1 days) and notify stakeholders. D) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~20 hours of idle time when the window is missed. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 14→≈12 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Change Order and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Construction window starts in ~26 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders B) log the change (CO/ECN link), notify stakeholders, revise the Work Package/schedule, and update the risk register; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk D) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change | B | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-5 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on BIM/DT, follow the rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 3-1-5 Go to Construction Dep. To proceed with Drawings safely, remember: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. | 4-1-5 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. | 5-1-5 Go to Project Management Dep. If the blocker is planning dependency, this node applies: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. |
| 1-5-4 | Work Package — design change impact Rule: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Jane Miller | Chief Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Jane-Miller.bmp | Jane Miller is the Chief Engineer. She is concerned about the impact of uncommunicated design changes on the project timeline and is trying to mediate the conflict between Operations and Project Management. | From Project Management we heard the Risk Register needs attention — missing calculation references. With Engineering constraints, if we defer it, Operation will inherit rework and version noise. I can update the schedule; will your team support coordination on your side? Keep interfaces explicit: note the impacted tags and connection points. It gives Operation clear SOPs and acceptance criteria. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | Risk Register: context — a design change and revision alignment; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. Insight: Work Package = scope + dependencies + resources + DoD; otherwise dates are fiction. Influence of Engineering: Design choices ripple into procurement specs and site fit‑up; early alignment pays back double. | Project Management flagged the Risk Register around a design change and revision alignment; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Risk Register? | A) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. B) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. C) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. D) Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. | D | Correct because: Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Risk Register is affected by design change and revision alignment. Current lead time is 20 days; the site window for Operation work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~12 hours of idle time when the window is missed. B) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈12 days; book a 3-day resequence for Operation; run change control/approvals (~3 days) and notify stakeholders. C) Shift the milestone by 7 days without logging risks or changes. D) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. | B | Correct because it meets the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 20→≈12 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Risk Register and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Operation window starts in ~54 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) notify stakeholders, revise the Work Package/schedule, log the change (CO/ECN link), and update the risk register; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders C) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk D) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change | A | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 2-1-5 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. | 3-1-5 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about Drawings, apply: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. | 4-1-5 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on Tech Spec, follow the rule: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. | 5-1-5 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on P&ID, follow the rule: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. |
| 2-1-2 | Tech Spec — spec/PO mismatch Rule: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Tom Baker | Procurement Specialist | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Tom-Baker.bmp | Tom Baker is a Procurement Specialist. He is frustrated with Engineering's deliverable, which he believes is a direct result of Procurement's own mistakes. He is trying to mediate the conflict and avoid further delays. | Heads-up from Engineering: the Engineering Report is referencing an obsolete spec. If Procurement cannot adjust promptly, Procurement sees order errors and logistics miss-windows. I can issue an ECN; will your team support coordination on your side? Document spec alignment: put the current revision in PO and vendor confirmations attached. It prevents Procurement from ordering the wrong items and burning buffers. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. | Engineering Report: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: Reports include normal and transient operating limits with tolerances and calculation references. Insight: Transient conditions belong in reports; they drive limits and test criteria. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Engineering flagged the Engineering Report around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | What is correct about the Engineering Report in an EPC context? | A) Reports include normal and transient operating limits with tolerances and calculation references. B) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. C) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. D) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. | A | Correct because: Reports include normal and transient operating limits with tolerances and calculation references. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the Engineering Report is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 14 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 11 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~7 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Do nothing now; let Engineering Report arrive in 14 days and accept ~16 hours idle on site. B) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 7 days; ask Procurement to resequence by 1 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~3 days). C) Skip approvals to save ~3 days; push Procurement to start with outdated documents. D) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. | B | Correct because it meets the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 14→≈7 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the Engineering Report and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Procurement window starts in ~65 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) escalate to management without preparing any document changes B) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' C) issue an ECN, publish the new revision to the repository, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, and notify impacted teams; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN | C | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-1 Go to Engineering Dep. When next step is about PO / Contracts, apply: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. | 3-2-1 Go to Construction Dep. Go here to address constructability clash. Rule of thumb: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. | 4-2-1 Go to Operation Dep. Prefer this path when Equipments must be updated. Key point: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 5-2-1 Go to Project Management Dep. Prefer this path when Tools must be updated. Key point: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. |
| 2-1-3 | P&ID — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Ivan Petrović | Project Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ivan-Petrovic.bmp | Ivan Petrović is a Project Manager in the Procurement Department. He is concerned about Engineering's late deliverables, which are affecting Construction's ability to get work done. He believes this is a direct result of Project Management's inability to deliver on time. | Engineering just noted the Technical Specification: pending equivalency approval. On Procurement side, late action means Construction gets wrong items and buffer erosion. I can attach calculation references; will your team support coordination on your side? Document spec alignment: put the current revision in PO and vendor confirmations attached. This keeps Construction out of out-of-sequence work and NCR traps. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. | Technical Specification: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. Insight: Transient conditions belong in reports; they drive limits and test criteria. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Engineering flagged the Technical Specification around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What is correct about the Technical Specification in an EPC context? | A) POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. B) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. C) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. D) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. | A | Correct because: POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the Technical Specification is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 18 days; the site window for Construction work is in 11 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 13 days; ask Construction to resequence by 3 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~3 days). B) Skip approvals to save ~3 days; push Construction to start with outdated documents. C) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. D) Do nothing now; let Technical Specification arrive in 18 days and accept ~24 hours idle on site. | A | Correct because it meets the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 18→≈13 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the Technical Specification and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Construction window starts in ~32 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN B) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' C) notify impacted teams, publish the new revision to the repository, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, and issue an ECN; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) escalate to management without preparing any document changes | C | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-1 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when PO / Contracts must be updated. Key point: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. | 3-2-1 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about Materials, apply: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. | 4-2-1 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 5-2-1 Go to Project Management Dep. Prefer this path when Tools must be updated. Key point: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. |
| 2-1-4 | Reports — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Maria Rodriguez | Procurement Coordinator | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Maria-Rodriguez.bmp | Maria Rodriguez is a Procurement Coordinator. She is frustrated with the vague requirements from Operation, which are preventing her from finalizing vendor selection and are causing a bottleneck. | In Engineering they flagged that the Technical Specification is blocked by lead-time constraints. If Procurement cannot adjust promptly, Operation sees order errors and logistics miss-windows. I can attach calculation references; will your team support coordination on your side? Flag logistics: call out windows, buffers, and any expediting priority. It lets Operation operate without safety waivers. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. | Technical Specification: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. Insight: Revision control isn't cosmetic — tags/interfaces must reconcile across P&ID and BOM. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Engineering flagged the Technical Specification around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What must be true for the Technical Specification to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. B) POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. C) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. D) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. | B | Correct because: POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. Other options are incorrect because: - A) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the Technical Specification is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 14 days; the site window for Operation work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Do nothing now; let Technical Specification arrive in 14 days and accept ~16 hours idle on site. B) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 8 days; ask Operation to resequence by 1 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~2 days). C) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. D) Skip approvals to save ~2 days; push Operation to start with outdated documents. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 14→≈8 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the Technical Specification and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Operation window starts in ~21 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) notify impacted teams, publish the new revision to the repository, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, and issue an ECN; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN C) escalate to management without preparing any document changes D) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' | A | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-1 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need PO / Contracts aligned: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. | 3-2-1 Go to Construction Dep. Go here to address constructability clash. Rule of thumb: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. | 4-2-1 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 5-2-1 Go to Project Management Dep. Go here to address planning dependency. Rule of thumb: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. |
| 2-1-5 | BIM/DT — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Maria Rodriguez | Procurement Coordinator | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Maria-Rodriguez.bmp | Maria Rodriguez is a Procurement Coordinator. She is frustrated with the new process being imposed by Project Management, which she believes is hindering her team's ability to procure materials and will cause even more delays. She is influencing Project Management to reconsider their solution. | Heads-up from Engineering: the Technical Specification is referencing an obsolete spec. If Procurement cannot adjust promptly, Project Management sees order errors and logistics miss-windows. I can attach calculation references; will your team support coordination on your side? Document spec alignment: put the current revision in PO and vendor confirmations attached. This preserves Project Management schedule integrity and KPIs. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. | Technical Specification: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. Insight: Transient conditions belong in reports; they drive limits and test criteria. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Engineering flagged the Technical Specification around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | What is correct about the Technical Specification in an EPC context? | A) POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. B) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. C) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. D) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. | A | Correct because: POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the Technical Specification is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 18 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Skip approvals to save ~4 days; push Project Management to start with outdated documents. B) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. C) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 14 days; ask Project Management to resequence by 2 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~4 days). D) Do nothing now; let Technical Specification arrive in 18 days and accept ~20 hours idle on site. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 18→≈14 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the Technical Specification and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Project Management window starts in ~50 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) escalate to management without preparing any document changes B) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' C) update drawings/P&ID/BOM, issue an ECN, publish the new revision to the repository, and notify impacted teams; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN | C | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-1 Go to Engineering Dep. To proceed with PO / Contracts safely, remember: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. | 3-2-1 Go to Construction Dep. If you need Materials aligned: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. | 4-2-1 Go to Operation Dep. To proceed with Equipments safely, remember: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 5-2-1 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with Tools safely, remember: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. |
| 2-3-1 | Installation — spec/PO mismatch Rule: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Maria Rodriguez | Procurement Coordinator | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Maria-Rodriguez.bmp | Maria Rodriguez is a Procurement Coordinator. She is frustrated with the constant miscommunication between Engineering and Procurement, which she believes is causing delays on her site. | Construction escalated the ITP (Testing); pending equivalency approval. If Procurement cannot adjust promptly, Engineering sees order errors and logistics miss-windows. I can update the ITP with hold points; will your team support coordination on your side? Document spec alignment: put the current revision in PO and vendor confirmations attached. It lets Engineering keep design clean and synced across artifacts. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. | ITP (Testing): context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. Insight: Method Statement encodes safe sequence and access; it's not 'tribal knowledge'. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Construction flagged the ITP (Testing) around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What is correct about the ITP (Testing) in an EPC context? | A) Hold points are for QA only; Operation does not sign them. B) An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. C) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. D) As-built records are unnecessary if drawings exist. | B | Correct because: An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the ITP (Testing) is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 15 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~32 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~1 days and rely on field checks. B) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈10 days); resequence by 0 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~1 days). C) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. D) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 15 days; fix NCRs later. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 15→≈10 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the ITP (Testing) and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Engineering window starts in ~42 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later B) set hold points and prerequisites, coordinate resequencing with site, update the Method Statement/ITP, and record as-built changes as needed; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | B | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-3 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Materials aligned: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. | 3-2-3 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when Equipments must be updated. Key point: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 4-2-3 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 5-2-3 Go to Project Management Dep. If you need QA/CoC aligned: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. |
| 2-3-2 | Testing (ITP) — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Maria Rodriguez | Procurement Coordinator | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Maria-Rodriguez.bmp | Maria Rodriguez is a Procurement Coordinator. She is frustrated with the vague requirements from Operation, which are preventing her from finalizing vendor selection and are causing a bottleneck. | Heads-up from Construction: the As-built Package is waiting on vendor confirmation. If Procurement cannot adjust promptly, Procurement sees order errors and logistics miss-windows. I can record as-built changes; will your team support coordination on your side? Include approval trail: equivalency sign-offs and QA/CoC must be bundled. It prevents Procurement from ordering the wrong items and burning buffers. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. | As-built Package: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: As-built records capture deviations and final tags for traceability. Insight: As‑built records create traceability; they aren't optional paperwork. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Construction flagged the As-built Package around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | Which statement best describes good practice for the As-built Package? | A) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. B) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. C) As-built records are unnecessary if drawings exist. D) As-built records capture deviations and final tags for traceability. | D | Correct because: As-built records capture deviations and final tags for traceability. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the As-built Package is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 17 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈13 days); resequence by 2 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~2 days). B) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 17 days; fix NCRs later. C) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~2 days and rely on field checks. D) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 17→≈13 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the As-built Package and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Procurement window starts in ~23 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) coordinate resequencing with site, set hold points and prerequisites, record as-built changes as needed, and update the Method Statement/ITP; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later C) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-3 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Materials must be updated. Key point: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. | 3-2-3 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when Equipments must be updated. Key point: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 4-2-3 Go to Operation Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Tools: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 5-2-3 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on QA/CoC, follow the rule: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. |
| 2-3-4 | Logistics — spec/PO mismatch Rule: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Mark Johnson | Procurement Manager | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Mark-Johnson.bmp | Mark Johnson, the Procurement Manager, is frustrated by the vague demands from Operation, which are preventing him from finalizing vendor selection and are causing a bottleneck. He is influencing the Operation-Construction transaction to prevent further project delays. | Construction just noted the Method Statement: referencing an obsolete spec. If Procurement cannot adjust promptly, Operation sees order errors and logistics miss-windows. I can prepare site access and prerequisites; will your team support coordination on your side? Document spec alignment: put the current revision in PO and vendor confirmations attached. It lets Operation operate without safety waivers. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. | Method Statement: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. Insight: Method Statement encodes safe sequence and access; it's not 'tribal knowledge'. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Construction flagged the Method Statement around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What is correct about the Method Statement in an EPC context? | A) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. B) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. C) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. D) The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. | D | Correct because: The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. | Construction reports the Method Statement is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 28 days; the site window for Operation work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~3 days and rely on field checks. B) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈23 days); resequence by 3 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~3 days). C) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 28 days; fix NCRs later. D) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 28→≈23 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Method Statement and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Operation window starts in ~60 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) coordinate resequencing with site, update the Method Statement/ITP, record as-built changes as needed, and set hold points and prerequisites; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later C) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-3 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Materials must be updated. Key point: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. | 3-2-3 Go to Construction Dep. If the blocker is constructability clash, this node applies: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 4-2-3 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 5-2-3 Go to Project Management Dep. If the blocker is planning dependency, this node applies: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. |
| 2-3-5 | QC/NCR — spec/PO mismatch Rule: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is a Site Foreman in the Construction Department. He is frustrated by Procurement's late deliverables, which are impacting his team's ability to get work done. He believes this is a direct result of Construction's inability to deliver on time. | Construction escalated the Installation Plan; pending equivalency approval. If Procurement cannot adjust promptly, Project Management sees order errors and logistics miss-windows. I can revise the Method Statement; will your team support coordination on your side? Include approval trail: equivalency sign-offs and QA/CoC must be bundled. This preserves Project Management schedule integrity and KPIs. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. | Installation Plan: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. Insight: As‑built records create traceability; they aren't optional paperwork. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Construction flagged the Installation Plan around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Installation Plan? | A) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. B) Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. C) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. D) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. | B | Correct because: Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. Other options are incorrect because: - A) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the Installation Plan is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 8 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 12 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. B) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈4 days); resequence by 2 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~4 days). C) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~4 days and rely on field checks. D) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 8 days; fix NCRs later. | B | Correct because it meets the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 8→≈4 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Installation Plan and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Project Management window starts in ~32 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) record as-built changes as needed, update the Method Statement/ITP, coordinate resequencing with site, and set hold points and prerequisites; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later C) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay D) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-3 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. | 3-2-3 Go to Construction Dep. For clarity on Equipments, follow the rule: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 4-2-3 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on Tools, follow the rule: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 5-2-3 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with QA/CoC safely, remember: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. |
| 2-4-1 | Permits — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Maria Rodriguez | Procurement Coordinator | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Maria-Rodriguez.bmp | Maria Rodriguez is a Procurement Coordinator. She is frustrated with the vague requirements from Operation, which are preventing her from finalizing vendor selection and are causing a bottleneck. | Heads-up from Operation: the O&M Manual is pending equivalency approval. On Procurement side, late action means Engineering gets wrong items and buffer erosion. I can compile the handover checklist; will your team support coordination on your side? Include approval trail: equivalency sign-offs and QA/CoC must be bundled. Once applied, Engineering avoids redesign churn and we stabilize the document set. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. | O&M Manual: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Insight: LOTO and permits are 'go/no‑go' gates; shortcuts surface as incidents later. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Operation flagged the O&M Manual around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | Which statement best describes good practice for the O&M Manual? | A) O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. B) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. C) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. D) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. | A | Correct because: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Operation reports the O&M Manual is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 24 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 4 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~8 hours. B) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. C) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. D) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈19 days) and allow Engineering resequencing by 0 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). | D | Correct because it best approaches the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 24→≈19 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the O&M Manual and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Engineering window starts in ~22 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start B) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup C) gate with PTW/LOTO, release a startup readiness note, update SOP/limits, and confirm acceptance criteria with Operation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later | C | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-4 Go to Engineering Dep. To proceed with Equipments safely, remember: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 3-2-4 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about Tools, apply: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 4-2-4 Go to Operation Dep. To proceed with QA/CoC safely, remember: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. | 5-2-4 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on PO / Contracts, follow the rule: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. |
| 2-4-2 | Handover Package — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Mark Johnson | Procurement Manager | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Mark-Johnson.bmp | Mark Johnson, the Procurement Manager, is frustrated that his own team's mistakes are causing delays in a process where they are both the producer and the consumer. He is trying to mediate the conflict and avoid further delays. | Operation just noted the Handover Package: lacking expediting priority. On Procurement side, late action means Procurement gets wrong items and buffer erosion. I can prepare startup readiness note; will your team support coordination on your side? Flag logistics: call out windows, buffers, and any expediting priority. It helps Procurement maintain PO accuracy and lead times. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. | Handover Package: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation set and signed acceptance. Insight: Operating limits bind SOPs and interlocks; transient modes matter most at startup. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Operation flagged the Handover Package around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | What must be true for the Handover Package to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. B) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. C) Handover requires a complete, verified documentation set and signed acceptance. D) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. | C | Correct because: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation set and signed acceptance. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Operation reports the Handover Package is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 18 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. B) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈14 days) and allow Procurement resequencing by 2 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). C) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~20 hours. D) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 18→≈14 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Handover Package and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Procurement window starts in ~69 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) release a startup readiness note, gate with PTW/LOTO, confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, and update SOP/limits; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later C) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start D) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup | A | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-4 Go to Engineering Dep. To proceed with Equipments safely, remember: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 3-2-4 Go to Construction Dep. If the blocker is constructability clash, this node applies: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 4-2-4 Go to Operation Dep. When next step is about QA/CoC, apply: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. | 5-2-4 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on PO / Contracts: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. |
| 2-4-3 | Operating Procedures — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Alex Turner | Procurement Specialist | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alex-Turner.bmp | Alex Turner is a Procurement Specialist. He is frustrated that his own department's mistakes are causing delays in a process where they are both the influencer and the producer. He is trying to get clarity to prevent project delays. | From Operation we heard the O&M Manual needs attention — referencing an obsolete spec. On Procurement side, late action means Construction gets wrong items and buffer erosion. I can compile the handover checklist; will your team support coordination on your side? Document spec alignment: put the current revision in PO and vendor confirmations attached. This keeps Construction out of out-of-sequence work and NCR traps. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. | O&M Manual: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Insight: Handover needs a complete, verified dossier — no partial acceptance. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Operation flagged the O&M Manual around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What is correct about the O&M Manual in an EPC context? | A) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. B) O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. C) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. D) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. | B | Correct because: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the O&M Manual is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 27 days; the site window for Construction work is in 11 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~8 hours. B) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. C) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. D) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈19 days) and allow Construction resequencing by 2 days; keep approvals formal (~1 days). | D | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 27→≈19 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the O&M Manual and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Construction window starts in ~35 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup B) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later C) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start D) confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, gate with PTW/LOTO, update SOP/limits, and release a startup readiness note; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-4 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 3-2-4 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Tools: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 4-2-4 Go to Operation Dep. When next step is about QA/CoC, apply: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. | 5-2-4 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with PO / Contracts safely, remember: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. |
| 2-4-5 | O&M Manuals — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #E6A213 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is the Foreman on the Construction site. He is frustrated by Procurement's late deliverables, which are impacting his team's ability to get work done. He believes this is a direct result of Construction's inability to deliver on time. | In Operation they flagged that the O&M Manual is waiting on vendor confirmation. From Procurement side, delay here cascades to PO updates and lead-time slip for Project Management. I can compile the handover checklist; will your team support coordination on your side? Include approval trail: equivalency sign-offs and QA/CoC must be bundled. It gives Project Management a clean milestone path and transparent risk picture. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. For traceability, I’ll link the RFI/ECN number and cross-reference related documents. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | O&M Manual: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Insight: LOTO and permits are 'go/no‑go' gates; shortcuts surface as incidents later. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Operation flagged the O&M Manual around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | Which statement best describes good practice for the O&M Manual? | A) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. B) O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. C) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. D) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. | B | Correct because: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Operation reports the O&M Manual is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 13 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 8 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~7 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. B) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈6 days) and allow Project Management resequencing by 2 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). C) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. D) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~24 hours. | B | Correct because it meets the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 13→≈6 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the O&M Manual and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Project Management window starts in ~28 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup B) update SOP/limits, release a startup readiness note, gate with PTW/LOTO, and confirm acceptance criteria with Operation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start D) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later | B | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-4 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Equipments: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. | 3-2-4 Go to Construction Dep. To proceed with Tools safely, remember: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 4-2-4 Go to Operation Dep. If you need QA/CoC aligned: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. | 5-2-4 Go to Project Management Dep. Prefer this path when PO / Contracts must be updated. Key point: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. |
| 2-5-1 | Change Order — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Maria Rodriguez | Procurement Coordinator | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Maria-Rodriguez.bmp | Maria Rodriguez is a Procurement Coordinator. She is trying to help Project Management finalize vendor selection, but she is concerned that the initial requirements from Operation are too vague. | From Project Management we heard the Work Package needs attention — lacking expediting priority. On Procurement side, late action means Engineering gets wrong items and buffer erosion. I can notify stakeholders; will your team support coordination on your side? Document spec alignment: put the current revision in PO and vendor confirmations attached. Once applied, Engineering avoids redesign churn and we stabilize the document set. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. | Work Package: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. Insight: Schedule accuracy depends on controlled changes; 'silent' updates break trust. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Project Management flagged the Work Package around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What is correct about the Work Package in an EPC context? | A) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. B) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. C) A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. D) Dependencies are only needed for critical path items. | C | Correct because: A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Work Package is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 8 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~7 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Shift the milestone by 3 days without logging risks or changes. B) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. C) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~20 hours of idle time when the window is missed. D) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈1 days; book a 2-day resequence for Engineering; run change control/approvals (~3 days) and notify stakeholders. | D | Correct because it meets the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 8→≈1 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Work Package and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Engineering window starts in ~19 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk B) notify stakeholders, update the risk register, log the change (CO/ECN link), and revise the Work Package/schedule; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change D) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders | B | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-5 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Tools aligned: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 3-2-5 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on QA/CoC: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. | 4-2-5 Go to Operation Dep. To proceed with PO / Contracts safely, remember: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. | 5-2-5 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Materials: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. |
| 2-5-2 | Comm Plan — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Maria Rodriguez | Procurement Coordinator | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Maria-Rodriguez.bmp | Maria Rodriguez is a Procurement Coordinator. She is frustrated with the new process being imposed by Project Management, which she believes is hindering her team's ability to procure materials and will cause even more delays. She is influencing Project Management to reconsider their solution. | Project Management just noted the Work Package: waiting on vendor confirmation. On Procurement side, late action means Procurement gets wrong items and buffer erosion. I can notify stakeholders; will your team support coordination on your side? Include approval trail: equivalency sign-offs and QA/CoC must be bundled. It helps Procurement maintain PO accuracy and lead times. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. | Work Package: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. Insight: Work Package = scope + dependencies + resources + DoD; otherwise dates are fiction. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Project Management flagged the Work Package around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Work Package? | A) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. B) A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. C) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. D) Dependencies are only needed for critical path items. | B | Correct because: A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Work Package is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 22 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 8 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈17 days; book a 0-day resequence for Procurement; run change control/approvals (~2 days) and notify stakeholders. B) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~24 hours of idle time when the window is missed. C) Shift the milestone by 8 days without logging risks or changes. D) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 22→≈17 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Work Package and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Procurement window starts in ~63 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk B) revise the Work Package/schedule, notify stakeholders, update the risk register, and log the change (CO/ECN link); document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change D) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders | B | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-5 Go to Engineering Dep. Go here to address design change impact. Rule of thumb: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 3-2-5 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about QA/CoC, apply: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. | 4-2-5 Go to Operation Dep. When next step is about PO / Contracts, apply: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. | 5-2-5 Go to Project Management Dep. Go here to address planning dependency. Rule of thumb: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. |
| 2-5-3 | Work Package — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Maria Rodriguez | Procurement Coordinator | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Maria-Rodriguez.bmp | Maria Rodriguez is a Procurement Coordinator. She is frustrated with the new process being imposed by Project Management, which she believes is hindering her team's ability to procure materials and will cause even more delays. She is influencing Project Management to reconsider their solution. | Heads-up from Project Management: the Communication Plan is blocked by lead-time constraints. If Procurement cannot adjust promptly, Construction sees order errors and logistics miss-windows. I can log the change request; will your team support coordination on your side? Document spec alignment: put the current revision in PO and vendor confirmations attached. It enables Construction to keep sequence and avoid rework on site. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. | Communication Plan: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: The comms plan defines audiences, channels, and triggers for updates. Insight: Schedule accuracy depends on controlled changes; 'silent' updates break trust. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Project Management flagged the Communication Plan around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What is correct about the Communication Plan in an EPC context? | A) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. B) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. C) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. D) The comms plan defines audiences, channels, and triggers for updates. | D | Correct because: The comms plan defines audiences, channels, and triggers for updates. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Communication Plan is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 26 days; the site window for Construction work is in 9 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈18 days; book a 2-day resequence for Construction; run change control/approvals (~1 days) and notify stakeholders. B) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. C) Shift the milestone by 7 days without logging risks or changes. D) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~12 hours of idle time when the window is missed. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 26→≈18 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Communication Plan and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Construction window starts in ~16 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change B) notify stakeholders, log the change (CO/ECN link), revise the Work Package/schedule, and update the risk register; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders D) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk | B | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-5 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 3-2-5 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about QA/CoC, apply: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. | 4-2-5 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on PO / Contracts, follow the rule: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. | 5-2-5 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on Materials, follow the rule: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. |
| 2-5-4 | Schedule — spec/PO mismatch Rule: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Richard Smith | Senior Procurement Manager | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Richard-Smith.bmp | Richard Smith is a Senior Procurement Manager. He is frustrated with the new process being imposed by Project Management, which he believes is hindering his team's ability to procure materials and will cause even more delays. He is influencing Project Management to reconsider their solution. | Project Management just noted the Risk Register: waiting on vendor confirmation. From Procurement side, delay here cascades to PO updates and lead-time slip for Operation. I can revise the Work Package; will your team support coordination on your side? Flag logistics: call out windows, buffers, and any expediting priority. It gives Operation clear SOPs and acceptance criteria. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. For traceability, I’ll link the RFI/ECN number and cross-reference related documents. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | Risk Register: context — spec reference and vendor timing; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. Insight: Risk register without owners is a wish list; contingencies need triggers. Influence of Procurement: Supplier confirmations and buffers turn engineering intent into feasible deliveries. | Project Management flagged the Risk Register around spec reference and vendor timing; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What must be true for the Risk Register to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. B) Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. C) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. D) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. | B | Correct because: Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Risk Register is affected by spec reference and vendor timing. Current lead time is 23 days; the site window for Operation work is in 4 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~32 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. B) Shift the milestone by 1 days without logging risks or changes. C) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~32 hours of idle time when the window is missed. D) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈18 days; book a 3-day resequence for Operation; run change control/approvals (~4 days) and notify stakeholders. | D | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 23→≈18 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Risk Register and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Operation window starts in ~68 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) notify stakeholders, update the risk register, log the change (CO/ECN link), and revise the Work Package/schedule; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk C) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders D) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change | A | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-2-5 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Tools: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. | 3-2-5 Go to Construction Dep. Go here to address constructability clash. Rule of thumb: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. | 4-2-5 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. | 5-2-5 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Materials: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. |
| 3-1-2 | P&ID — constructability clash Rule: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Ivan Petrović | Project Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ivan-Petrovic.bmp | Ivan Petrović is a Project Manager in the Construction Department. He is frustrated with the vague deliverables from Procurement, which are preventing him from finalizing vendor selection and are causing a bottleneck. | Heads-up from Engineering: the 3D Model/BIM is missing hold points. On Construction side, a miss here pushes Procurement into out-of-sequence work. I can issue an ECN; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate site work: prerequisites, access, and barriers must be clear. This lets Procurement place correct orders and hold logistics windows. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. I will add vendor quotes/confirmations to back the lead-time claims. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | 3D Model/BIM: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Insight: Revision control isn't cosmetic — tags/interfaces must reconcile across P&ID and BOM. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Engineering flagged the 3D Model/BIM around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | What must be true for the 3D Model/BIM to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. B) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. C) The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. D) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. | C | Correct because: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. | Engineering reports the 3D Model/BIM is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 8 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 3 days; ask Procurement to resequence by 2 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~4 days). B) Skip approvals to save ~4 days; push Procurement to start with outdated documents. C) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. D) Do nothing now; let 3D Model/BIM arrive in 8 days and accept ~12 hours idle on site. | A | Correct because it meets the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 8→≈3 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the 3D Model/BIM and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Procurement window starts in ~60 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) escalate to management without preparing any document changes B) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' C) notify impacted teams, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, publish the new revision to the repository, and issue an ECN; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN | C | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-1 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: Material traceability maintained through installation. | 2-3-1 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. | 4-3-1 Go to Operation Dep. When next step is about Testing (ITP), apply: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 5-3-1 Go to Project Management Dep. If the blocker is planning dependency, this node applies: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. |
| 3-1-3 | Reports — constructability clash Rule: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Sarah Chen | Construction Manager | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Chen.bmp | Sarah Chen is the Construction Manager. She is concerned with the impact of a delivery delay from Engineering on her team's ability to get work done, and she is influencing the Engineering-Procurement transaction to prevent further project delays. | Engineering escalated the 3D Model/BIM; not constructible as-is. On Construction side, a miss here pushes Construction into out-of-sequence work. I can issue an ECN; will your team support coordination on your side? Embed constructability: add sequence notes and hold points in the package. It allows Construction to proceed with the planned front of work. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. I will add vendor quotes/confirmations to back the lead-time claims. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | 3D Model/BIM: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Insight: Transient conditions belong in reports; they drive limits and test criteria. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Engineering flagged the 3D Model/BIM around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What is correct about the 3D Model/BIM in an EPC context? | A) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. B) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. C) The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. D) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. | C | Correct because: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the 3D Model/BIM is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 8 days; the site window for Construction work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~32 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Skip approvals to save ~2 days; push Construction to start with outdated documents. B) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. C) Do nothing now; let 3D Model/BIM arrive in 8 days and accept ~32 hours idle on site. D) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 4 days; ask Construction to resequence by 2 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~2 days). | D | Correct because it meets the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 8→≈4 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the 3D Model/BIM and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Construction window starts in ~29 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN B) issue an ECN, notify impacted teams, publish the new revision to the repository, and update drawings/P&ID/BOM; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) escalate to management without preparing any document changes D) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' | B | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-1 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Method Statement aligned: Material traceability maintained through installation. | 2-3-1 Go to Procurement Dep. If you need Installation aligned: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. | 4-3-1 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on Testing (ITP), follow the rule: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 5-3-1 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with Logistics safely, remember: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. |
| 3-1-4 | BIM/DT — constructability clash Rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | James Wood | Construction Foreman | #E6A213 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/James-Wood.bmp | James Wood is a Construction Foreman. He is frustrated with the vague deliverables from Operations, which are impacting his team's ability to procure materials from Procurement. He is trying to get clarity to prevent project delays. | Heads-up from Engineering: the Technical Specification is missing hold points. If Construction constraints hold, Operation will stall on site and accumulate NCRs. I can align P&ID and BOM; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate site work: prerequisites, access, and barriers must be clear. This keeps Operation within safe limits and ready for startup. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. | Technical Specification: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. Insight: Revision control isn't cosmetic — tags/interfaces must reconcile across P&ID and BOM. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Engineering flagged the Technical Specification around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What must be true for the Technical Specification to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. B) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. C) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. D) POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. | D | Correct because: POs must reference the current Spec revision; any substitution requires formal approval. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the Technical Specification is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 22 days; the site window for Operation work is in 6 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 18 days; ask Operation to resequence by 2 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~4 days). B) Skip approvals to save ~4 days; push Operation to start with outdated documents. C) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. D) Do nothing now; let Technical Specification arrive in 22 days and accept ~24 hours idle on site. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 22→≈18 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the Technical Specification and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Operation window starts in ~15 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) escalate to management without preparing any document changes B) publish the new revision to the repository, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, issue an ECN, and notify impacted teams; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN D) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' | B | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-1 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Method Statement: Material traceability maintained through installation. | 2-3-1 Go to Procurement Dep. If you need Installation aligned: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. | 4-3-1 Go to Operation Dep. To proceed with Testing (ITP) safely, remember: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 5-3-1 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on Logistics, follow the rule: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. |
| 3-1-5 | Drawings — constructability clash Rule: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Ivan Petrović | Project Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ivan-Petrovic.bmp | Ivan Petrović is a Project Manager in the Construction Department. He is frustrated with the vague deliverables from Procurement, which are preventing him from finalizing vendor selection and are causing a bottleneck. | Engineering just noted the 3D Model/BIM: missing HSE barriers in plan. On Construction side, a miss here pushes Project Management into out-of-sequence work. I can issue an ECN; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate site work: prerequisites, access, and barriers must be clear. It gives Project Management a clean milestone path and transparent risk picture. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. I will add vendor quotes/confirmations to back the lead-time claims. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | 3D Model/BIM: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Insight: Revision control isn't cosmetic — tags/interfaces must reconcile across P&ID and BOM. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Engineering flagged the 3D Model/BIM around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | What must be true for the 3D Model/BIM to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. B) The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. C) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. D) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. | B | Correct because: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Other options are incorrect because: - A) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the 3D Model/BIM is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 23 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 7 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~32 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. B) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 17 days; ask Project Management to resequence by 1 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~1 days). C) Do nothing now; let 3D Model/BIM arrive in 23 days and accept ~32 hours idle on site. D) Skip approvals to save ~1 days; push Project Management to start with outdated documents. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 23→≈17 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the 3D Model/BIM and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Project Management window starts in ~42 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' B) escalate to management without preparing any document changes C) issue an ECN, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, notify impacted teams, and publish the new revision to the repository; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN | C | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-1 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Method Statement must be updated. Key point: Material traceability maintained through installation. | 2-3-1 Go to Procurement Dep. When next step is about Installation, apply: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. | 4-3-1 Go to Operation Dep. Prefer this path when Testing (ITP) must be updated. Key point: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 5-3-1 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Logistics: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. |
| 3-2-1 | Materials — constructability clash Rule: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Ivan Petrović | Project Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ivan-Petrovic.bmp | Ivan Petrović is a Project Manager in the Construction Department. He is frustrated with the constant errors in the blueprints he receives from Engineering, which he believes is a direct result of vague requirements from Operation. | In Procurement they flagged that the QA/CoC Dossier is missing hold points. On Construction side, a miss here pushes Engineering into out-of-sequence work. I can attach QA/CoC; will your team support coordination on your side? Embed constructability: add sequence notes and hold points in the package. This unblocks Engineering to proceed without version noise. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. I will add vendor quotes/confirmations to back the lead-time claims. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | QA/CoC Dossier: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. Insight: Lead times are contractual; expediting without scope clarity burns buffers. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Procurement flagged the QA/CoC Dossier around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What is correct about the QA/CoC Dossier in an EPC context? | A) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. B) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. C) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. D) QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. | D | Correct because: QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. Other options are incorrect because: - A) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - B) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. | Procurement reports the QA/CoC Dossier is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 17 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 12 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~7 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. B) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈10 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~4 days; coordinate resequence by 2 days with Engineering. C) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 17 days and let Engineering absorb ~24 hours idle time. D) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. | B | Correct because it meets the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 17→≈10 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the QA/CoC Dossier and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Engineering window starts in ~70 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency B) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later C) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines D) get vendor confirmation, update the PO/spec reference, start expediting for critical lines, and flag the site window to stakeholders; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-2 Go to Engineering Dep. To proceed with Installation safely, remember: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. | 2-3-2 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on Testing (ITP), follow the rule: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 4-3-2 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 5-3-2 Go to Project Management Dep. If you need QC/NCR aligned: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. |
| 3-2-3 | Equipments — constructability clash Rule: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #E6A213 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is the Foreman on the Construction site. He is frustrated by Procurement's late deliverables, which are impacting his team's ability to get work done. He believes this is a direct result of Construction's inability to deliver on time. | In Procurement they flagged that the Material Requisition is missing hold points. If Construction constraints hold, Construction will stall on site and accumulate NCRs. I can launch expediting for critical items; will your team support coordination on your side? Embed constructability: add sequence notes and hold points in the package. This keeps Construction out of out-of-sequence work and NCR traps. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. | Material Requisition: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: MRs are derived from the latest drawings/specs and define exact quantities and codes. Insight: Lead times are contractual; expediting without scope clarity burns buffers. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Procurement flagged the Material Requisition around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What is correct about the Material Requisition in an EPC context? | A) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. B) MRs are derived from the latest drawings/specs and define exact quantities and codes. C) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. D) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. | B | Correct because: MRs are derived from the latest drawings/specs and define exact quantities and codes. Other options are incorrect because: - A) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Procurement reports the Material Requisition is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 27 days; the site window for Construction work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~7 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 27 days and let Construction absorb ~24 hours idle time. B) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈20 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~3 days; coordinate resequence by 1 days with Construction. C) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. D) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 27→≈20 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Material Requisition and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Construction window starts in ~55 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later B) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines C) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency D) start expediting for critical lines, flag the site window to stakeholders, update the PO/spec reference, and get vendor confirmation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-2 Go to Engineering Dep. When next step is about Installation, apply: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. | 2-3-2 Go to Procurement Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Testing (ITP): Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 4-3-2 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 5-3-2 Go to Project Management Dep. When next step is about QC/NCR, apply: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. |
| 3-2-4 | Tools — constructability clash Rule: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #E6A213 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is the Foreman on the Construction site. He is frustrated by Procurement's inability to provide a clear timeline for deliverables, which is causing delays on his site. He is trying to get clarity to prevent project delays. | From Procurement we heard the QA/CoC Dossier needs attention — missing HSE barriers in plan. From Construction side, leaving it as-is forces resequencing and rework for Operation. I can attach QA/CoC; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate site work: prerequisites, access, and barriers must be clear. It lets Operation operate without safety waivers. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. | QA/CoC Dossier: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Procurement flagged the QA/CoC Dossier around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What must be true for the QA/CoC Dossier to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. B) QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. C) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. D) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. | B | Correct because: QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. Other options are incorrect because: - A) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Procurement reports the QA/CoC Dossier is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 10 days; the site window for Operation work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈5 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~2 days; coordinate resequence by 0 days with Operation. B) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 10 days and let Operation absorb ~24 hours idle time. C) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. D) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. | A | Correct because it meets the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 10→≈5 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the QA/CoC Dossier and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Operation window starts in ~47 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency B) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines C) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later D) update the PO/spec reference, start expediting for critical lines, get vendor confirmation, and flag the site window to stakeholders; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-2 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Installation aligned: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. | 2-3-2 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on Testing (ITP), follow the rule: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 4-3-2 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on Logistics, follow the rule: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 5-3-2 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on QC/NCR: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. |
| 3-2-5 | QA/CoC — constructability clash Rule: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Ivan Petrović | Project Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ivan-Petrovic.bmp | Ivan Petrović is a Project Manager in the Construction Department. He is frustrated with the vague deliverables from Procurement, which are preventing him from finalizing vendor selection and are causing a bottleneck. | Procurement escalated the Material Requisition; unclear for as-built traceability. If Construction constraints hold, Project Management will stall on site and accumulate NCRs. I can launch expediting for critical items; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate site work: prerequisites, access, and barriers must be clear. It helps Project Management align dependencies and communications. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. | Material Requisition: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: MRs are derived from the latest drawings/specs and define exact quantities and codes. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Procurement flagged the Material Requisition around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | What must be true for the Material Requisition to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. B) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. C) MRs are derived from the latest drawings/specs and define exact quantities and codes. D) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. | C | Correct because: MRs are derived from the latest drawings/specs and define exact quantities and codes. Other options are incorrect because: - A) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - B) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - D) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. | Procurement reports the Material Requisition is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 25 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. B) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈17 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~4 days; coordinate resequence by 1 days with Project Management. C) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 25 days and let Project Management absorb ~16 hours idle time. D) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 25→≈17 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Material Requisition and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Project Management window starts in ~53 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency B) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines C) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later D) start expediting for critical lines, flag the site window to stakeholders, get vendor confirmation, and update the PO/spec reference; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-2 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Installation must be updated. Key point: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. | 2-3-2 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 4-3-2 Go to Operation Dep. Prefer this path when Logistics must be updated. Key point: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 5-3-2 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with QC/NCR safely, remember: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. |
| 3-4-1 | Handover Package — constructability clash Rule: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Michael Johnson | Construction Foreman | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is a Site Foreman in the Construction Department. He is concerned about how a delivery delay from Operation is affecting his work, causing him to put pressure on the transaction between Operation and Engineering. | Heads-up from Operation: the Operating Limits is missing HSE barriers in plan. From Construction side, leaving it as-is forces resequencing and rework for Engineering. I can compile the handover checklist; will your team support coordination on your side? Embed constructability: add sequence notes and hold points in the package. It lets Engineering keep design clean and synced across artifacts. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. | Operating Limits: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. Insight: Handover needs a complete, verified dossier — no partial acceptance. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Operation flagged the Operating Limits around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What is correct about the Operating Limits in an EPC context? | A) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. B) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. C) Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. D) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. | C | Correct because: Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. Other options are incorrect because: - A) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the Operating Limits is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 13 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~7 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~8 hours. B) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. C) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. D) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈6 days) and allow Engineering resequencing by 1 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). | D | Correct because it meets the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 13→≈6 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Operating Limits and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Engineering window starts in ~32 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup B) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start C) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later D) gate with PTW/LOTO, release a startup readiness note, update SOP/limits, and confirm acceptance criteria with Operation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-4 Go to Engineering Dep. To proceed with Testing (ITP) safely, remember: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 2-3-4 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 4-3-4 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. | 5-3-4 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Method Statement: Material traceability maintained through installation. |
| 3-4-2 | Operating Procedures — constructability clash Rule: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Carlos Ramirez | Construction Foreman | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Carlos-Ramirez.bmp | Carlos Ramirez is the Foreman on the Construction site. He is frustrated by the vague deliverables from Operations, which are impacting his team's ability to procure materials from Procurement. He is trying to get clarity to prevent project delays. | Operation just noted the Operating Procedure: not constructible as-is. From Construction side, leaving it as-is forces resequencing and rework for Procurement. I can prepare startup readiness note; will your team support coordination on your side? Mark quality controls: criteria for acceptance and NCR flow. It prevents Procurement from ordering the wrong items and burning buffers. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. | Operating Procedure: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: Procedures reflect the latest tags and operating limits; operators use them as the primary guide. Insight: LOTO and permits are 'go/no‑go' gates; shortcuts surface as incidents later. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Operation flagged the Operating Procedure around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Operating Procedure? | A) Procedures reflect the latest tags and operating limits; operators use them as the primary guide. B) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. C) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. D) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. | A | Correct because: Procedures reflect the latest tags and operating limits; operators use them as the primary guide. Other options are incorrect because: - B) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the Operating Procedure is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 7 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. B) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. C) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~24 hours. D) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈5 days) and allow Procurement resequencing by 3 days; keep approvals formal (~4 days). | D | Correct because it meets the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 7→≈5 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Operating Procedure and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Procurement window starts in ~64 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, update SOP/limits, gate with PTW/LOTO, and release a startup readiness note; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup C) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start D) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later | A | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-4 Go to Engineering Dep. Go here to address design change impact. Rule of thumb: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 2-3-4 Go to Procurement Dep. When next step is about Logistics, apply: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 4-3-4 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. | 5-3-4 Go to Project Management Dep. When next step is about Method Statement, apply: Material traceability maintained through installation. |
| 3-4-3 | O&M Manuals — constructability clash Rule: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Mark Johnson | Site Foreman | #E6A213 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Mark-Johnson.bmp | Mark Johnson is the Site Foreman on the Construction site. He is frustrated by the vague deliverables from Operation, which are impacting his team's ability to get work done. He believes this is a direct result of Construction's inability to deliver on time. | In Operation they flagged that the Operating Procedure is unclear for as-built traceability. If Construction constraints hold, Construction will stall on site and accumulate NCRs. I can prepare startup readiness note; will your team support coordination on your side? Mark quality controls: criteria for acceptance and NCR flow. This keeps Construction out of out-of-sequence work and NCR traps. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. | Operating Procedure: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: Procedures reflect the latest tags and operating limits; operators use them as the primary guide. Insight: LOTO and permits are 'go/no‑go' gates; shortcuts surface as incidents later. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Operation flagged the Operating Procedure around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Operating Procedure? | A) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. B) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. C) Procedures reflect the latest tags and operating limits; operators use them as the primary guide. D) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. | C | Correct because: Procedures reflect the latest tags and operating limits; operators use them as the primary guide. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Operation reports the Operating Procedure is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 24 days; the site window for Construction work is in 8 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. B) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~16 hours. C) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈19 days) and allow Construction resequencing by 3 days; keep approvals formal (~1 days). D) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 24→≈19 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Operating Procedure and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Construction window starts in ~58 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) gate with PTW/LOTO, release a startup readiness note, update SOP/limits, and confirm acceptance criteria with Operation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start C) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later D) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup | A | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-4 Go to Engineering Dep. To proceed with Testing (ITP) safely, remember: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 2-3-4 Go to Procurement Dep. When next step is about Logistics, apply: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 4-3-4 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on QC/NCR, follow the rule: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. | 5-3-4 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with Method Statement safely, remember: Material traceability maintained through installation. |
| 3-4-5 | Operating Limits — constructability clash Rule: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Ivan Petrović | Project Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Ivan-Petrovic.bmp | Ivan Petrović is a Project Manager in the Construction Department. He is frustrated with the vague deliverables from Procurement, which are preventing him from finalizing vendor selection and are causing a bottleneck. | Operation just noted the Permit-to-Work: not constructible as-is. From Construction side, leaving it as-is forces resequencing and rework for Project Management. I can issue permits/LOTO; will your team support coordination on your side? Mark quality controls: criteria for acceptance and NCR flow. This preserves Project Management schedule integrity and KPIs. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. | Permit-to-Work: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: PTW includes LOTO and explicit hazard controls for the task. Insight: LOTO and permits are 'go/no‑go' gates; shortcuts surface as incidents later. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Operation flagged the Permit-to-Work around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Permit-to-Work? | A) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. B) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. C) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. D) PTW includes LOTO and explicit hazard controls for the task. | D | Correct because: PTW includes LOTO and explicit hazard controls for the task. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the Permit-to-Work is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 28 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 6 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~32 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. B) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. C) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈20 days) and allow Project Management resequencing by 2 days; keep approvals formal (~3 days). D) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~32 hours. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 28→≈20 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Permit-to-Work and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Project Management window starts in ~64 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later B) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start C) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup D) update SOP/limits, gate with PTW/LOTO, release a startup readiness note, and confirm acceptance criteria with Operation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-4 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Testing (ITP) aligned: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. | 2-3-4 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 4-3-4 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. | 5-3-4 Go to Project Management Dep. Prefer this path when Method Statement must be updated. Key point: Material traceability maintained through installation. |
| 3-5-1 | Comm Plan — constructability clash Rule: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Sarah Chen | Construction Manager | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Chen.bmp | Sarah Chen is the Construction Manager. She is concerned with the impact of Project Management's new processes on her team's ability to get work done, and she believes this is a result of Engineering's inability to deliver on time. | Project Management just noted the Work Package: unclear for as-built traceability. From Construction side, leaving it as-is forces resequencing and rework for Engineering. I can log the change request; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate site work: prerequisites, access, and barriers must be clear. It lets Engineering keep design clean and synced across artifacts. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. | Work Package: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. Insight: Risk register without owners is a wish list; contingencies need triggers. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Project Management flagged the Work Package around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What must be true for the Work Package to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. B) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. C) A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. D) Dependencies are only needed for critical path items. | C | Correct because: A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Work Package is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 9 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 7 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Shift the milestone by 7 days without logging risks or changes. B) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~24 hours of idle time when the window is missed. C) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈3 days; book a 0-day resequence for Engineering; run change control/approvals (~1 days) and notify stakeholders. D) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. | C | Correct because it meets the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 9→≈3 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Work Package and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Engineering window starts in ~38 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change B) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk C) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders D) update the risk register, log the change (CO/ECN link), revise the Work Package/schedule, and notify stakeholders; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-5 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 2-3-5 Go to Procurement Dep. If you need QC/NCR aligned: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. | 4-3-5 Go to Operation Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Method Statement: Material traceability maintained through installation. | 5-3-5 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Installation: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. |
| 3-5-2 | Work Package — constructability clash Rule: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #E6A213 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is the Foreman on the Construction site. He is frustrated with the new process being imposed by Project Management, which he believes is hindering his team's ability to procure materials and will cause even more delays. | Project Management escalated the Change Order; missing hold points. On Construction side, a miss here pushes Procurement into out-of-sequence work. I can revise the Work Package; will your team support coordination on your side? Mark quality controls: criteria for acceptance and NCR flow. This lets Procurement place correct orders and hold logistics windows. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I will add vendor quotes/confirmations to back the lead-time claims. Close by notifying the site/ops leads so they can plan accordingly. | Change Order: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. Insight: Work Package = scope + dependencies + resources + DoD; otherwise dates are fiction. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Project Management flagged the Change Order around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Change Order? | A) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. B) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. C) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. D) A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. | D | Correct because: A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Change Order is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 22 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 6 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~16 hours of idle time when the window is missed. B) Shift the milestone by 4 days without logging risks or changes. C) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈16 days; book a 2-day resequence for Procurement; run change control/approvals (~3 days) and notify stakeholders. D) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 22→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Change Order and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Procurement window starts in ~45 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders B) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk C) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change D) log the change (CO/ECN link), revise the Work Package/schedule, notify stakeholders, and update the risk register; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-5 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 2-3-5 Go to Procurement Dep. Prefer this path when QC/NCR must be updated. Key point: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. | 4-3-5 Go to Operation Dep. Prefer this path when Method Statement must be updated. Key point: Material traceability maintained through installation. | 5-3-5 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Installation: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. |
| 3-5-3 | Schedule — constructability clash Rule: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #E6A213 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is the Foreman on the Construction site. He is frustrated with the new process being imposed by Project Management, which he believes is hindering his team's ability to procure materials and will cause even more delays. | In Project Management they flagged that the Integrated Schedule is missing HSE barriers in plan. On Construction side, a miss here pushes Construction into out-of-sequence work. I can notify stakeholders; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate site work: prerequisites, access, and barriers must be clear. It allows Construction to proceed with the planned front of work. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. I will add vendor quotes/confirmations to back the lead-time claims. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | Integrated Schedule: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. Insight: Risk register without owners is a wish list; contingencies need triggers. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Project Management flagged the Integrated Schedule around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What must be true for the Integrated Schedule to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. B) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. C) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. D) The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. | D | Correct because: The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Integrated Schedule is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 24 days; the site window for Construction work is in 11 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈16 days; book a 3-day resequence for Construction; run change control/approvals (~2 days) and notify stakeholders. B) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~16 hours of idle time when the window is missed. C) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. D) Shift the milestone by 8 days without logging risks or changes. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 24→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Integrated Schedule and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Construction window starts in ~62 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change B) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders C) revise the Work Package/schedule, update the risk register, log the change (CO/ECN link), and notify stakeholders; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk | C | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-5 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Logistics must be updated. Key point: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 2-3-5 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on QC/NCR, follow the rule: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. | 4-3-5 Go to Operation Dep. If you need Method Statement aligned: Material traceability maintained through installation. | 5-3-5 Go to Project Management Dep. When next step is about Installation, apply: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. |
| 3-5-4 | Risk Register — constructability clash Rule: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Michael Johnson | Site Foreman | #E6A213 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Michael-Johnson.bmp | Michael Johnson is the Foreman on the Construction site. He is frustrated with the new process being imposed by Project Management, which he believes is hindering his team's ability to get work done and will cause even more delays. | Project Management escalated the Work Package; missing hold points. If Construction constraints hold, Operation will stall on site and accumulate NCRs. I can log the change request; will your team support coordination on your side? Mark quality controls: criteria for acceptance and NCR flow. This keeps Operation within safe limits and ready for startup. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. | Work Package: context — constructability and sequence; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. Insight: Work Package = scope + dependencies + resources + DoD; otherwise dates are fiction. Influence of Construction: Field realities expose drawing gaps fast; constructability feedback avoids late redesign. | Project Management flagged the Work Package around constructability and sequence; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Work Package? | A) A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. B) WP content is defined by the contractor and does not require PM approval. C) Dependencies are only needed for critical path items. D) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. | A | Correct because: A Work Package includes scope, dependencies, resources, and clear DoD. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Work Package is affected by constructability and sequence. Current lead time is 28 days; the site window for Operation work is in 4 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. B) Shift the milestone by 3 days without logging risks or changes. C) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈20 days; book a 1-day resequence for Operation; run change control/approvals (~3 days) and notify stakeholders. D) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~12 hours of idle time when the window is missed. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 28→≈20 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Work Package and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Operation window starts in ~60 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) revise the Work Package/schedule, log the change (CO/ECN link), notify stakeholders, and update the risk register; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders C) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change D) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk | A | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-3-5 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Logistics aligned: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. | 2-3-5 Go to Procurement Dep. When next step is about QC/NCR, apply: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. | 4-3-5 Go to Operation Dep. Prefer this path when Method Statement must be updated. Key point: Material traceability maintained through installation. | 5-3-5 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with Installation safely, remember: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. |
| 4-1-2 | Reports — operational constraints Rule: Operating limits include transient modes with tolerances and refs. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Robert Davis | Operations Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Robert-Davis.bmp | Robert Davis is the Operations Manager. He is cautious about approving documentation from Construction before it has been finalized by Engineering. He is concerned that a delay in the Construction-Engineering transaction could affect the project's long-term viability. | Engineering just noted the P&ID: unclear for startup readiness. On Operation side, unresolved, this undermines Procurement acceptance and SOPs. I can align P&ID and BOM; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate safety: permits/LOTO and hazard notes must be explicit. It prevents Procurement from ordering the wrong items and burning buffers. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. | P&ID: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. Insight: Revision control isn't cosmetic — tags/interfaces must reconcile across P&ID and BOM. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Engineering flagged the P&ID around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | What must be true for the P&ID to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. B) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. C) P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. D) P&ID is secondary to the 3D model and may be outdated by design. | C | Correct because: P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the P&ID is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 23 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 4 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~3 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Do nothing now; let P&ID arrive in 23 days and accept ~20 hours idle on site. B) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. C) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 20 days; ask Procurement to resequence by 0 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~3 days). D) Skip approvals to save ~3 days; push Procurement to start with outdated documents. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 23→≈20 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the P&ID and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Procurement window starts in ~57 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) escalate to management without preparing any document changes B) update drawings/P&ID/BOM, notify impacted teams, publish the new revision to the repository, and issue an ECN; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' D) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN | B | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-1 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Operating Limits: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. | 2-4-1 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. | 3-4-1 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about Handover Package, apply: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 5-4-1 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with Operating Procedures safely, remember: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. |
| 4-1-3 | BIM/DT — operational constraints Rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Mark Peterson | Maintenance Planner | #2474C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Mark-Peterson.bmp | Mark Peterson is a Maintenance Planner in the Operation Department. He is concerned that the blueprints from Engineering are too complex and are causing delays on the construction site, which he believes is a direct result of vague requirements from Operation. | From Engineering we heard the 3D Model/BIM needs attention — missing operating limits. If Operation does not gate it, Construction risks unsafe procedures and startup delays. I can update the engineering report; will your team support coordination on your side? Add acceptance hooks: what Operation will verify at handover. It allows Construction to proceed with the planned front of work. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | 3D Model/BIM: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Insight: Clash results in model must propagate into drawings; model isn't a substitute for P&ID. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Engineering flagged the 3D Model/BIM around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | Which statement best describes good practice for the 3D Model/BIM? | A) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. B) The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. C) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. D) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. | B | Correct because: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the 3D Model/BIM is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 15 days; the site window for Construction work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Skip approvals to save ~4 days; push Construction to start with outdated documents. B) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. C) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 7 days; ask Construction to resequence by 1 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~4 days). D) Do nothing now; let 3D Model/BIM arrive in 15 days and accept ~24 hours idle on site. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 15→≈7 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the 3D Model/BIM and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Construction window starts in ~43 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) issue an ECN, publish the new revision to the repository, notify impacted teams, and update drawings/P&ID/BOM; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) escalate to management without preparing any document changes C) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' D) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN | A | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-1 Go to Engineering Dep. For clarity on Operating Limits, follow the rule: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. | 2-4-1 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. | 3-4-1 Go to Construction Dep. For clarity on Handover Package, follow the rule: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 5-4-1 Go to Project Management Dep. If the blocker is planning dependency, this node applies: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. |
| 4-1-4 | Drawings — operational constraints Rule: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Sarah Chen | Construction Manager | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Chen.bmp | Sarah Chen is the Construction Manager. She is concerned with the impact of a delivery delay from Operation on her team's ability to get work done, and she believes this is a direct result of Engineering's inability to deliver on time. | Heads-up from Engineering: the P&ID is lacking permits/LOTO. From Operation side, gaps here turn into safety and readiness risks for Operation. I can align P&ID and BOM; will your team support coordination on your side? Address operability: include limits, SOP links, and maintenance constraints. This keeps Operation within safe limits and ready for startup. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. | P&ID: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. Insight: Transient conditions belong in reports; they drive limits and test criteria. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Engineering flagged the P&ID around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What is correct about the P&ID in an EPC context? | A) Tags can be changed in the field without document updates. B) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. C) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. D) P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. | D | Correct because: P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the P&ID is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 12 days; the site window for Operation work is in 8 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~32 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Do nothing now; let P&ID arrive in 12 days and accept ~32 hours idle on site. B) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. C) Skip approvals to save ~3 days; push Operation to start with outdated documents. D) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 10 days; ask Operation to resequence by 2 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~3 days). | D | Correct because it meets the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 12→≈10 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the P&ID and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Operation window starts in ~50 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' B) issue an ECN, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, notify impacted teams, and publish the new revision to the repository; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) escalate to management without preparing any document changes D) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN | B | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-1 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Operating Limits: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. | 2-4-1 Go to Procurement Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Permits: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. | 3-4-1 Go to Construction Dep. If you need Handover Package aligned: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 5-4-1 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is planning dependency, this node applies: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. |
| 4-1-5 | Tech Spec — operational constraints Rule: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Robert Davis | Operations Manager | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Robert-Davis.bmp | Robert Davis is the Operations Manager. With a focus on long-term efficiency, he is wary of approving initial specifications from Construction that may not meet the project's final needs. He believes this is a critical step to prevent future operational issues. | Engineering escalated the P&ID; not safe under current procedures. On Operation side, unresolved, this undermines Project Management acceptance and SOPs. I can align P&ID and BOM; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate safety: permits/LOTO and hazard notes must be explicit. This preserves Project Management schedule integrity and KPIs. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. | P&ID: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. Insight: Revision control isn't cosmetic — tags/interfaces must reconcile across P&ID and BOM. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Engineering flagged the P&ID around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | What must be true for the P&ID to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. B) P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. C) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. D) Tags can be changed in the field without document updates. | B | Correct because: P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. Other options are incorrect because: - A) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the P&ID is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 27 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Skip approvals to save ~1 days; push Project Management to start with outdated documents. B) Do nothing now; let P&ID arrive in 27 days and accept ~12 hours idle on site. C) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 23 days; ask Project Management to resequence by 1 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~1 days). D) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 27→≈23 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the P&ID and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Project Management window starts in ~69 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' B) issue an ECN, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, notify impacted teams, and publish the new revision to the repository; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN D) escalate to management without preparing any document changes | B | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-1 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Operating Limits aligned: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. | 2-4-1 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on Permits, follow the rule: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. | 3-4-1 Go to Construction Dep. Go here to address constructability clash. Rule of thumb: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 5-4-1 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with Operating Procedures safely, remember: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. |
| 4-2-1 | Equipments — operational constraints Rule: QA/CoC must accompany materials/equipment; verify on receipt. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Robert Davis | Operations Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Robert-Davis.bmp | Robert Davis is the Operations Manager. With a focus on long-term efficiency, he is wary of approving initial specifications from Procurement before Engineering gives its final go-ahead. He believes this is a critical step to prevent future operational issues. | Procurement escalated the Equipment Package; missing operating limits. From Operation side, gaps here turn into safety and readiness risks for Engineering. I can submit an equivalency for approval; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate safety: permits/LOTO and hazard notes must be explicit. Once applied, Engineering avoids redesign churn and we stabilize the document set. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. | Equipment Package: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Procurement flagged the Equipment Package around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What must be true for the Equipment Package to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. B) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. C) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. D) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. | A | Correct because: An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. Other options are incorrect because: - B) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Procurement reports the Equipment Package is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 27 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. B) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈25 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~4 days; coordinate resequence by 2 days with Engineering. C) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. D) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 27 days and let Engineering absorb ~24 hours idle time. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 27→≈25 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Equipment Package and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Engineering window starts in ~23 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later B) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency C) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines D) update the PO/spec reference, start expediting for critical lines, flag the site window to stakeholders, and get vendor confirmation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-2 Go to Engineering Dep. Go here to address design change impact. Rule of thumb: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. | 2-4-2 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 3-4-2 Go to Construction Dep. If the blocker is constructability clash, this node applies: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 5-4-2 Go to Project Management Dep. When next step is about O&M Manuals, apply: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. |
| 4-2-3 | Tools — operational constraints Rule: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Robert Davis | Operations Manager | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Robert-Davis.bmp | Robert Davis is the Operations Manager. With a focus on long-term efficiency, he is wary of approving initial specifications from Construction that may not meet the project's final needs. He believes this is a critical step to prevent future operational issues. | In Procurement they flagged that the Vendor Data is lacking permits/LOTO. On Operation side, unresolved, this undermines Construction acceptance and SOPs. I can launch expediting for critical items; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate safety: permits/LOTO and hazard notes must be explicit. It enables Construction to keep sequence and avoid rework on site. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. | Vendor Data: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Procurement flagged the Vendor Data around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What must be true for the Vendor Data to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. B) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. C) Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. D) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. | C | Correct because: Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. Other options are incorrect because: - A) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. | Procurement reports the Vendor Data is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 26 days; the site window for Construction work is in 7 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~3 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈23 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~1 days; coordinate resequence by 2 days with Construction. B) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 26 days and let Construction absorb ~12 hours idle time. C) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. D) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 26→≈23 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Vendor Data and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Construction window starts in ~20 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) update the PO/spec reference, start expediting for critical lines, get vendor confirmation, and flag the site window to stakeholders; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later C) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines D) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency | A | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-2 Go to Engineering Dep. For clarity on Permits, follow the rule: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. | 2-4-2 Go to Procurement Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Handover Package: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 3-4-2 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about Operating Procedures, apply: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 5-4-2 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with O&M Manuals safely, remember: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. |
| 4-2-4 | QA/CoC — operational constraints Rule: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Alex Turner | Procurement Specialist | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alex-Turner.bmp | Alex Turner is a Procurement Specialist. He is frustrated that his own department's mistakes are causing delays in a process where they are both the influencer and the producer. He is trying to get clarity to prevent project delays. | Procurement just noted the QA/CoC Dossier: hard to maintain/access. If Operation does not gate it, Operation risks unsafe procedures and startup delays. I can request vendor confirmation; will your team support coordination on your side? Add acceptance hooks: what Operation will verify at handover. It gives Operation clear SOPs and acceptance criteria. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | QA/CoC Dossier: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. Insight: POs fail without explicit spec revision; vendor 'equivalents' require documented approval. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Procurement flagged the QA/CoC Dossier around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | Which statement best describes good practice for the QA/CoC Dossier? | A) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. B) QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. C) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. D) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. | B | Correct because: QA/CoC certificates (e.g., EN 10204 3.1) must accompany deliveries per the spec. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Procurement reports the QA/CoC Dossier is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 18 days; the site window for Operation work is in 9 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~3 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈15 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~4 days; coordinate resequence by 2 days with Operation. B) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 18 days and let Operation absorb ~12 hours idle time. C) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. D) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 18→≈15 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the QA/CoC Dossier and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Operation window starts in ~36 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later B) update the PO/spec reference, flag the site window to stakeholders, get vendor confirmation, and start expediting for critical lines; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines D) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency | B | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-2 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Permits must be updated. Key point: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. | 3-4-2 Go to Construction Dep. To proceed with Operating Procedures safely, remember: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 4-4-2 Go to Operation Dep. If safety risks are unclear and need formal gating and sign‑off. | 5-4-2 Go to Project Management Dep. To proceed with O&M Manuals safely, remember: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. |
| 4-2-5 | PO / Contracts — operational constraints Rule: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Alex Turner | Procurement Specialist | #ffb6c1 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alex-Turner.bmp | Alex Turner is a Procurement Specialist. He is frustrated that his own department's mistakes are causing delays in a process where they are both the influencer and the producer. He is trying to get clarity to prevent project delays. | Procurement just noted the Purchase Order: hard to maintain/access. If Operation does not gate it, Project Management risks unsafe procedures and startup delays. I can attach QA/CoC; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate safety: permits/LOTO and hazard notes must be explicit. It gives Project Management a clean milestone path and transparent risk picture. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Close by notifying the site/ops leads so they can plan accordingly. | Purchase Order: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: A PO must reference the current spec/datasheet revision and capture agreed lead times. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Procurement flagged the Purchase Order around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | What must be true for the Purchase Order to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) A PO must reference the current spec/datasheet revision and capture agreed lead times. B) POs are not impacted by engineering changes once issued. C) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. D) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. | A | Correct because: A PO must reference the current spec/datasheet revision and capture agreed lead times. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Procurement reports the Purchase Order is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 16 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 6 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. B) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. C) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 16 days and let Project Management absorb ~20 hours idle time. D) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈12 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~3 days; coordinate resequence by 1 days with Project Management. | D | Correct because it best approaches the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 16→≈12 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Purchase Order and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Project Management window starts in ~56 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) update the PO/spec reference, flag the site window to stakeholders, start expediting for critical lines, and get vendor confirmation; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later C) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency D) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines | A | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-2 Go to Engineering Dep. When next step is about Permits, apply: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. | 3-4-2 Go to Construction Dep. If the blocker is constructability clash, this node applies: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 4-4-2 Go to Operation Dep. When a clear 'go/no‑go' decision is required from Operations. | 5-4-2 Go to Project Management Dep. Take this route to enforce control on O&M Manuals: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. |
| 4-3-1 | Testing (ITP) — operational constraints Rule: Front-of-work depends on prerequisites; enforce readiness gates. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Robert Davis | Operations Manager | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Robert-Davis.bmp | Robert Davis is the Operations Manager. He is cautious about approving documentation from Construction before it has been finalized by Engineering. He is concerned that a delay in the Construction-Engineering transaction could affect the project's long-term viability. | Heads-up from Construction: the Logistics Plan is missing operating limits. On Operation side, unresolved, this undermines Engineering acceptance and SOPs. I can prepare site access and prerequisites; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate safety: permits/LOTO and hazard notes must be explicit. It lets Engineering keep design clean and synced across artifacts. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. | Logistics Plan: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. Insight: ITP hold points prevent silent failures; approvals must precede works. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Construction flagged the Logistics Plan around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What must be true for the Logistics Plan to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. B) Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. C) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. D) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. | B | Correct because: Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. Other options are incorrect because: - A) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. | Construction reports the Logistics Plan is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 8 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 12 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 8 days; fix NCRs later. B) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. C) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈3 days); resequence by 2 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~4 days). D) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~4 days and rely on field checks. | C | Correct because it meets the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 8→≈3 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Logistics Plan and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Engineering window starts in ~13 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later B) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward C) set hold points and prerequisites, update the Method Statement/ITP, record as-built changes as needed, and coordinate resequencing with site; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | C | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-3 Go to Engineering Dep. Go here to address design change impact. Rule of thumb: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 2-4-3 Go to Procurement Dep. Prefer this path when Operating Procedures must be updated. Key point: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 3-4-3 Go to Construction Dep. If you need O&M Manuals aligned: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. | 5-4-3 Go to Project Management Dep. If the blocker is planning dependency, this node applies: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. |
| 4-3-2 | Logistics — operational constraints Rule: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | David Chen | Operations Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/David-Chen.bmp | David Chen is the Operations Manager. With a focus on long-term efficiency, he is wary of approving initial specifications from Construction that may not meet the project's final needs. | Construction escalated the Logistics Plan; unclear for startup readiness. If Operation does not gate it, Procurement risks unsafe procedures and startup delays. I can prepare site access and prerequisites; will your team support coordination on your side? Add acceptance hooks: what Operation will verify at handover. This lets Procurement place correct orders and hold logistics windows. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | Logistics Plan: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. Insight: As‑built records create traceability; they aren't optional paperwork. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Construction flagged the Logistics Plan around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Logistics Plan? | A) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. B) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. C) Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. D) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. | C | Correct because: Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. Other options are incorrect because: - A) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - B) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the Logistics Plan is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 13 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈7 days); resequence by 2 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~3 days). B) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~3 days and rely on field checks. C) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. D) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 13 days; fix NCRs later. | A | Correct because it meets the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 13→≈7 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Logistics Plan and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Procurement window starts in ~62 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later B) update the Method Statement/ITP, set hold points and prerequisites, record as-built changes as needed, and coordinate resequencing with site; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | B | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-3 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 2-4-3 Go to Procurement Dep. When next step is about Operating Procedures, apply: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 3-4-3 Go to Construction Dep. Go here to address constructability clash. Rule of thumb: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. | 5-4-3 Go to Project Management Dep. For clarity on Operating Limits, follow the rule: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. |
| 4-3-4 | QC/NCR — operational constraints Rule: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Dr. Anya Sharma | Head of Operations | #28a745 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Dr.-Anya-Sharma.bmp | Dr. Anya Sharma is the Head of Operations. She is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is holding up a key deliverable from Project Management because she believes their new process lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure the project's long-term operational success. | Construction escalated the ITP (Testing); unclear for startup readiness. From Operation side, gaps here turn into safety and readiness risks for Operation. I can coordinate temporary works; will your team support coordination on your side? Add acceptance hooks: what Operation will verify at handover. This keeps Operation within safe limits and ready for startup. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. | ITP (Testing): context — operability and safety gating; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. Insight: As‑built records create traceability; they aren't optional paperwork. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Construction flagged the ITP (Testing) around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | Which statement best describes good practice for the ITP (Testing)? | A) An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. B) Hold points are for QA only; Operation does not sign them. C) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. D) ITP is interchangeable with Method Statement; either one is enough. | A | Correct because: An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the ITP (Testing) is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 24 days; the site window for Operation work is in 12 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. B) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 24 days; fix NCRs later. C) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~3 days and rely on field checks. D) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈16 days); resequence by 0 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~3 days). | D | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 24→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the ITP (Testing) and it is constrained by dependencies and schedule control. The next Operation window starts in ~32 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay B) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward C) coordinate resequencing with site, record as-built changes as needed, set hold points and prerequisites, and update the Method Statement/ITP; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later | C | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-3 Go to Engineering Dep. For clarity on Handover Package, follow the rule: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 2-4-3 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 3-4-3 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when O&M Manuals must be updated. Key point: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. | 5-4-3 Go to Project Management Dep. When next step is about Operating Limits, apply: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. |
| 4-3-5 | Method Statement — operational constraints Rule: Material traceability maintained through installation. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Dr. Anya Sharma | Head of Operations | #28a745 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Dr.-Anya-Sharma.bmp | Dr. Anya Sharma is the Head of Operations. She is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is holding up a key deliverable from Project Management because she believes their new process lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure the project's long-term operational success. | In Construction they flagged that the Logistics Plan is not safe under current procedures. If Operation does not gate it, Project Management risks unsafe procedures and startup delays. I can prepare site access and prerequisites; will your team support coordination on your side? Add acceptance hooks: what Operation will verify at handover. It gives Project Management a clean milestone path and transparent risk picture. Publish the summary and who-what-when; keep a watch on critical windows. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | Logistics Plan: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. Insight: As‑built records create traceability; they aren't optional paperwork. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Construction flagged the Logistics Plan around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Logistics Plan? | A) Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. B) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. C) As-built records are unnecessary if drawings exist. D) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. | A | Correct because: Logistics windows must align with site readiness and ITP. Other options are incorrect because: - B) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the Logistics Plan is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 11 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 9 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~3 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈8 days); resequence by 1 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~4 days). B) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. C) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~4 days and rely on field checks. D) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 11 days; fix NCRs later. | A | Correct because it meets the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 11→≈8 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Logistics Plan and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Project Management window starts in ~59 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) record as-built changes as needed, set hold points and prerequisites, coordinate resequencing with site, and update the Method Statement/ITP; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward C) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay D) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-3 Go to Engineering Dep. Go here to address design change impact. Rule of thumb: Handover requires a complete, verified documentation package. | 2-4-3 Go to Procurement Dep. To proceed with Operating Procedures safely, remember: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 3-4-3 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on O&M Manuals: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. | 5-4-3 Go to Project Management Dep. Go here to address planning dependency. Rule of thumb: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. |
| 4-5-1 | Work Package — operational constraints Rule: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Sarah Chen | Construction Manager | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Chen.bmp | Sarah Chen is the Construction Manager. She is concerned with the impact of Project Management's new processes on her team's ability to get work done, and she believes this is a result of Engineering's inability to deliver on time. | Project Management just noted the Integrated Schedule: missing operating limits. On Operation side, unresolved, this undermines Engineering acceptance and SOPs. I can log the change request; will your team support coordination on your side? Address operability: include limits, SOP links, and maintenance constraints. It lets Engineering keep design clean and synced across artifacts. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. | Integrated Schedule: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. Insight: Schedule accuracy depends on controlled changes; 'silent' updates break trust. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Project Management flagged the Integrated Schedule around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What is correct about the Integrated Schedule in an EPC context? | A) The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. B) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. C) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. D) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. | A | Correct because: The schedule must reflect approved changes and communicate impacts. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Integrated Schedule is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 18 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~8 hours of idle time when the window is missed. B) Shift the milestone by 5 days without logging risks or changes. C) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈16 days; book a 0-day resequence for Engineering; run change control/approvals (~2 days) and notify stakeholders. D) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. | C | Correct because it best approaches the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 18→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Integrated Schedule and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Engineering window starts in ~43 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change B) update the risk register, notify stakeholders, revise the Work Package/schedule, and log the change (CO/ECN link); document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk D) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders | B | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-5 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Operating Procedures: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 2-4-5 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. | 3-4-5 Go to Construction Dep. If the blocker is constructability clash, this node applies: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. | 5-4-5 Go to Operation Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Permits: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. |
| 4-5-2 | Schedule — operational constraints Rule: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Robert Davis | Operations Manager | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Robert-Davis.bmp | Robert Davis is the Operations Manager. He is cautious about approving documentation from Construction before it has been finalized by Engineering. He is concerned that a delay in the Construction-Engineering transaction could affect the project's long-term viability. | Project Management escalated the Communication Plan; lacking permits/LOTO. If Operation does not gate it, Procurement risks unsafe procedures and startup delays. I can revise the Work Package; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate safety: permits/LOTO and hazard notes must be explicit. This lets Procurement place correct orders and hold logistics windows. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. I'll include references to calculations/tests and the applicable standards. Close by notifying the site/ops leads so they can plan accordingly. | Communication Plan: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: The comms plan defines audiences, channels, and triggers for updates. Insight: Risk register without owners is a wish list; contingencies need triggers. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Project Management flagged the Communication Plan around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | What must be true for the Communication Plan to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. B) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. C) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. D) The comms plan defines audiences, channels, and triggers for updates. | D | Correct because: The comms plan defines audiences, channels, and triggers for updates. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Communication Plan is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 20 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 10 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈14 days; book a 2-day resequence for Procurement; run change control/approvals (~2 days) and notify stakeholders. B) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. C) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~20 hours of idle time when the window is missed. D) Shift the milestone by 8 days without logging risks or changes. | A | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 20→≈14 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Communication Plan and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Procurement window starts in ~35 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change B) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk C) update the risk register, log the change (CO/ECN link), revise the Work Package/schedule, and notify stakeholders; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders | C | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-5 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 2-4-5 Go to Procurement Dep. Take this route to enforce control on O&M Manuals: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. | 3-4-5 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Operating Limits: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. | 4-4-5 Go to Operation Dep. To align startup readiness and interlocks before handover. |
| 4-5-3 | Risk Register — operational constraints Rule: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Dr. Anya Sharma | Head of Operations | #4472C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Dr.-Anya-Sharma.bmp | Dr. Anya Sharma, the Head of Operations, is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is now holding up a key deliverable from Project Management because she believes their new process lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure the project's long-term operational success. | Project Management just noted the Change Order: missing operating limits. On Operation side, unresolved, this undermines Construction acceptance and SOPs. I can update the risk register; will your team support coordination on your side? Gate safety: permits/LOTO and hazard notes must be explicit. It enables Construction to keep sequence and avoid rework on site. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. | Change Order: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. Insight: Risk register without owners is a wish list; contingencies need triggers. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Project Management flagged the Change Order around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What must be true for the Change Order to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Change Orders are bureaucracy; email confirmation is enough. B) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. C) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. D) A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. | D | Correct because: A CO formalizes scope/schedule/cost changes and links to ECN/approvals. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Change Order is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 21 days; the site window for Construction work is in 9 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. B) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~8 hours of idle time when the window is missed. C) Shift the milestone by 9 days without logging risks or changes. D) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈17 days; book a 0-day resequence for Construction; run change control/approvals (~1 days) and notify stakeholders. | D | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 21→≈17 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Change Order and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Construction window starts in ~53 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk B) notify stakeholders, update the risk register, log the change (CO/ECN link), and revise the Work Package/schedule; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders D) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change | B | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-5 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Operating Procedures must be updated. Key point: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 2-4-5 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on O&M Manuals, follow the rule: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. | 3-4-5 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Operating Limits: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. | 5-4-5 Go to Project Management Dep. Prefer this path when Permits must be updated. Key point: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. |
| 4-5-4 | Change Order — operational constraints Rule: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Dr. Anya Sharma | Head of Operations | #28a745 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Dr.-Anya-Sharma.bmp | Dr. Anya Sharma is the Head of Operations. She is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is holding up a key deliverable from Project Management because she believes their new process lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure the project's long-term operational success. | Heads-up from Project Management: the Risk Register is hard to maintain/access. On Operation side, unresolved, this undermines Operation acceptance and SOPs. I can notify stakeholders; will your team support coordination on your side? Address operability: include limits, SOP links, and maintenance constraints. It lets Operation operate without safety waivers. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. | Risk Register: context — operability and safety gating; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. Insight: Schedule accuracy depends on controlled changes; 'silent' updates break trust. Influence of Operation: Operability adds constraints invisible on paper; procedures codify them for safety. | Project Management flagged the Risk Register around operability and safety gating; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What is correct about the Risk Register in an EPC context? | A) Risks do not need owners; the team owns them collectively. B) Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. C) The schedule should not be changed for engineering revisions. D) Work Packages can omit dependencies if the team communicates well. | B | Correct because: Risks have owners, mitigations, and contingencies with review cadence. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Project Management reports the Risk Register is affected by operability and safety gating. Current lead time is 15 days; the site window for Operation work is in 6 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Hold plan unchanged and accept ~16 hours of idle time when the window is missed. B) Revise the Work Package and schedule; expedite only critical path to ≈13 days; book a 3-day resequence for Operation; run change control/approvals (~1 days) and notify stakeholders. C) Shift the milestone by 3 days without logging risks or changes. D) Force all areas to accelerate without approvals to keep the date on paper. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 15→≈13 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Project Management owns the Risk Register and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Operation window starts in ~31 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) force all teams to accelerate without logging a change B) update the risk register, revise the Work Package/schedule, log the change (CO/ECN link), and notify stakeholders; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) shift the date informally without notifying stakeholders D) keep the milestone unchanged on paper and hide the risk | B | Correct because: It immediately restores governance by aligning plan, change control, communications, and risks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-4-5 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Operating Procedures: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. | 2-4-5 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on O&M Manuals, follow the rule: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. | 3-4-5 Go to Construction Dep. When next step is about Operating Limits, apply: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. | 5-4-5 Go to Project Management Dep. If the blocker is planning dependency, this node applies: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. |
| 5-1-2 | BIM/DT — planning dependency Rule: Digital models reflect latest tags/equipment data. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. She is concerned with the impact of Engineering's late deliverables on the project timeline and is trying to mediate the conflict between Engineering and Procurement. | From Engineering we heard the 3D Model/BIM needs attention — understated schedule risk. From Project Management side, without control, Procurement loses milestone integrity and risk clarity. I can attach calculation references; will your team support coordination on your side? Close the loop: define who approves and who is informed. This lets Procurement place correct orders and hold logistics windows. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. For traceability, I’ll link the RFI/ECN number and cross-reference related documents. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | 3D Model/BIM: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Insight: Clash results in model must propagate into drawings; model isn't a substitute for P&ID. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Engineering flagged the 3D Model/BIM around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | Which statement best describes good practice for the 3D Model/BIM? | A) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. B) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. C) The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. D) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. | C | Correct because: The model reflects the latest tags and equipment data and is used for clash detection, not a replacement for P&ID. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the 3D Model/BIM is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 16 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 11 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~7 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. B) Do nothing now; let 3D Model/BIM arrive in 16 days and accept ~20 hours idle on site. C) Skip approvals to save ~1 days; push Procurement to start with outdated documents. D) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 9 days; ask Procurement to resequence by 3 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~1 days). | D | Correct because it meets the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 16→≈9 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the 3D Model/BIM and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Procurement window starts in ~43 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) escalate to management without preparing any document changes B) update drawings/P&ID/BOM, publish the new revision to the repository, notify impacted teams, and issue an ECN; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN D) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' | B | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-1 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 2-5-1 Go to Procurement Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Change Order: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. | 3-5-1 Go to Construction Dep. For clarity on Comm Plan, follow the rule: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 4-5-1 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on Work Package, follow the rule: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. |
| 5-1-3 | Drawings — planning dependency Rule: Changes via ECN with revision log; keep P&ID/BOM in sync. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. With a focus on the big picture, she is concerned with project timelines and budgets. She is now directly intervening to resolve a conflict that has escalated beyond the control of individual departments. | From Engineering we heard the Drawings needs attention — understated schedule risk. On Project Management side, no fix means Construction faces misaligned dependencies and KPIs. I can update the engineering report; will your team support coordination on your side? Map dependencies: reflect impacts in schedule and Work Package. This keeps Construction out of out-of-sequence work and NCR traps. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. | Drawings: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: Drawings must be revision-controlled and aligned with P&ID and BOM. Insight: Transient conditions belong in reports; they drive limits and test criteria. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Engineering flagged the Drawings around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | What is correct about the Drawings in an EPC context? | A) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. B) Drawings must be revision-controlled and aligned with P&ID and BOM. C) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. D) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. | B | Correct because: Drawings must be revision-controlled and aligned with P&ID and BOM. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. | Engineering reports the Drawings is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 21 days; the site window for Construction work is in 6 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. B) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 15 days; ask Construction to resequence by 0 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~4 days). C) Do nothing now; let Drawings arrive in 21 days and accept ~8 hours idle on site. D) Skip approvals to save ~4 days; push Construction to start with outdated documents. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 21→≈15 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the Drawings and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Construction window starts in ~23 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) notify impacted teams, issue an ECN, update drawings/P&ID/BOM, and publish the new revision to the repository; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN C) escalate to management without preparing any document changes D) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' | A | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-1 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Risk Register: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 2-5-1 Go to Procurement Dep. For clarity on Change Order, follow the rule: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. | 3-5-1 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Comm Plan: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 4-5-1 Go to Operation Dep. Prefer this path when Work Package must be updated. Key point: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. |
| 5-1-4 | Tech Spec — planning dependency Rule: PO must reference current Spec revision; no orders from obsolete docs. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Jane Miller | Chief Engineer | #3498db | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Jane-Miller.bmp | Jane Miller is the Chief Engineer. She is concerned about the impact of uncommunicated design changes on the project timeline and is trying to mediate the conflict between Operations and Project Management. | Engineering escalated the P&ID; outside change control. If Project Management isn’t aligned, Operation inherits schedule drift and poor visibility. I can release a new drawing revision; will your team support coordination on your side? Expose risk: quantify floats/contingency and update the register. It lets Operation operate without safety waivers. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. | P&ID: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. Insight: Revision control isn't cosmetic — tags/interfaces must reconcile across P&ID and BOM. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Engineering flagged the P&ID around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What must be true for the P&ID to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) Tags can be changed in the field without document updates. B) P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. C) P&ID can be updated after installation; field fixes are sufficient. D) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. | B | Correct because: P&ID is the single source of truth for tags, isolation, and interfaces; it must be consistent with other docs. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the P&ID is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 12 days; the site window for Operation work is in 11 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~16 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. B) Skip approvals to save ~1 days; push Operation to start with outdated documents. C) Do nothing now; let P&ID arrive in 12 days and accept ~16 hours idle on site. D) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 10 days; ask Operation to resequence by 0 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~1 days). | D | Correct because it meets the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 12→≈10 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the P&ID and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Operation window starts in ~54 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) escalate to management without preparing any document changes B) update drawings/P&ID/BOM, issue an ECN, notify impacted teams, and publish the new revision to the repository; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN D) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' | B | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-1 Go to Engineering Dep. For clarity on Risk Register, follow the rule: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 2-5-1 Go to Procurement Dep. If you need Change Order aligned: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. | 3-5-1 Go to Construction Dep. For clarity on Comm Plan, follow the rule: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 4-5-1 Go to Operation Dep. If the blocker is operational constraints, this node applies: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. |
| 5-1-5 | P&ID — planning dependency Rule: Single source of truth for drawings; sync P&ID and tags. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. With a focus on the big picture, she is concerned with project timelines and budgets. She is now directly intervening to resolve a conflict that has escalated beyond the control of individual departments. | Engineering escalated the Engineering Report; outside change control. From Project Management side, without control, Project Management loses milestone integrity and risk clarity. I can align P&ID and BOM; will your team support coordination on your side? Close the loop: define who approves and who is informed. It gives Project Management a clean milestone path and transparent risk picture. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. For traceability, I’ll link the RFI/ECN number and cross-reference related documents. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | Engineering Report: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: Reports include normal and transient operating limits with tolerances and calculation references. Insight: Clash results in model must propagate into drawings; model isn't a substitute for P&ID. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Engineering flagged the Engineering Report around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Engineering Report? | A) Reports can omit transient modes; operators will adapt on site. B) Specs do not need to match the PO if vendor quality is high. C) Drawings may skip revision control if changes are minor. D) Reports include normal and transient operating limits with tolerances and calculation references. | D | Correct because: Reports include normal and transient operating limits with tolerances and calculation references. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Engineering reports the Engineering Report is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 13 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 6 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Skip approvals to save ~2 days; push Project Management to start with outdated documents. B) Release a new revision immediately and align P&ID/BOM; expedite only critical items so lead time ≈ 5 days; ask Project Management to resequence by 0 days if needed; run approvals in parallel (~2 days). C) Expedite everything indiscriminately and ignore BOM/P&ID sync to keep paperwork minimal. D) Do nothing now; let Engineering Report arrive in 13 days and accept ~8 hours idle on site. | B | Correct because it meets the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 13→≈5 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Engineering owns the Engineering Report and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Project Management window starts in ~34 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) escalate to management without preparing any document changes B) push Construction to proceed with the outdated drawing and 'fix later' C) wait for others to confirm and avoid issuing any ECN D) update drawings/P&ID/BOM, notify impacted teams, publish the new revision to the repository, and issue an ECN; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores design control and prevents downstream rework by issuing change, syncing documents, and informing dependents. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-1 Go to Engineering Dep. Go here to address design change impact. Rule of thumb: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 2-5-1 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. | 3-5-1 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Comm Plan: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 4-5-1 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. |
| 5-2-1 | Tools — planning dependency Rule: No vendor change without documented equivalency approval. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. With a focus on the big picture, she is concerned with project timelines and budgets. She is now directly intervening to resolve a conflict that has escalated beyond the control of individual departments. | From Procurement we heard the Equipment Package needs attention — missing dependency mapping. From Project Management side, without control, Engineering loses milestone integrity and risk clarity. I can launch expediting for critical items; will your team support coordination on your side? Expose risk: quantify floats/contingency and update the register. This unblocks Engineering to proceed without version noise. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. For traceability, I’ll link the RFI/ECN number and cross-reference related documents. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | Equipment Package: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Procurement flagged the Equipment Package around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What must be true for the Equipment Package to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. B) An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. C) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. D) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. | B | Correct because: An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Procurement reports the Equipment Package is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 9 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 12 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈4 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~2 days; coordinate resequence by 3 days with Engineering. B) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. C) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. D) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 9 days and let Engineering absorb ~8 hours idle time. | A | Correct because it meets the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 9→≈4 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Equipment Package and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Engineering window starts in ~32 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later B) flag the site window to stakeholders, get vendor confirmation, start expediting for critical lines, and update the PO/spec reference; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines D) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency | B | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-2 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Change Order aligned: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. | 2-5-2 Go back to Procurement Dep. To proceed with Comm Plan safely, remember: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 3-5-2 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when Work Package must be updated. Key point: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 4-5-2 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. |
| 5-2-3 | QA/CoC — planning dependency Rule: Logistics windows aligned with site readiness and ITP. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. She is concerned with the impact of Project Management's late deliverables on the project timeline and is trying to mediate the conflict between Project Management and Procurement. | From Procurement we heard the Purchase Order needs attention — missing dependency mapping. From Project Management side, without control, Construction loses milestone integrity and risk clarity. I can request vendor confirmation; will your team support coordination on your side? Close the loop: define who approves and who is informed. It allows Construction to proceed with the planned front of work. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Make sure temporary measures are visible in the work plan. For traceability, I’ll link the RFI/ECN number and cross-reference related documents. Finally, mirror the update in the risk register and schedule notes. | Purchase Order: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: A PO must reference the current spec/datasheet revision and capture agreed lead times. Insight: POs fail without explicit spec revision; vendor 'equivalents' require documented approval. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Procurement flagged the Purchase Order around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Purchase Order? | A) A PO must reference the current spec/datasheet revision and capture agreed lead times. B) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. C) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. D) POs are not impacted by engineering changes once issued. | A | Correct because: A PO must reference the current spec/datasheet revision and capture agreed lead times. Other options are incorrect because: - B) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Procurement reports the Purchase Order is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 9 days; the site window for Construction work is in 7 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. B) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈3 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~3 days; coordinate resequence by 1 days with Construction. C) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. D) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 9 days and let Construction absorb ~8 hours idle time. | B | Correct because it meets the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 9→≈3 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option D) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Purchase Order and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Construction window starts in ~27 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines B) flag the site window to stakeholders, update the PO/spec reference, get vendor confirmation, and start expediting for critical lines; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later D) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency | B | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-2 Go to Engineering Dep. Go here to address design change impact. Rule of thumb: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. | 2-5-2 Go back to Procurement Dep. When next step is about Comm Plan, apply: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 3-5-2 Go to Construction Dep. For clarity on Work Package, follow the rule: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 4-5-2 Go to Operation Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Schedule: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. |
| 5-2-4 | PO / Contracts — planning dependency Rule: POs must reference current Spec/DS; substitutions require approval. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. She is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is concerned that the new process lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure the project's long-term operational success. | Procurement escalated the Vendor Data; understated schedule risk. If Project Management isn’t aligned, Operation inherits schedule drift and poor visibility. I can update the PO reference; will your team support coordination on your side? Close the loop: define who approves and who is informed. It lets Operation operate without safety waivers. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. | Vendor Data: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. Insight: POs fail without explicit spec revision; vendor 'equivalents' require documented approval. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Procurement flagged the Vendor Data around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Vendor Data? | A) A PO does not need to reference any spec as long as price is fixed. B) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. C) Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. D) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. | C | Correct because: Vendor documents must match the spec and be formally reviewed/approved before use. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Procurement reports the Vendor Data is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 27 days; the site window for Operation work is in 12 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~3 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 27 days and let Operation absorb ~20 hours idle time. B) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈24 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~1 days; coordinate resequence by 1 days with Operation. C) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. D) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 27→≈24 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Vendor Data and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Operation window starts in ~18 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines B) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later C) start expediting for critical lines, get vendor confirmation, flag the site window to stakeholders, and update the PO/spec reference; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency | C | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-2 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Change Order: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. | 2-5-2 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 3-5-2 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when Work Package must be updated. Key point: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 4-5-2 Go to Operation Dep. For clarity on Schedule, follow the rule: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. |
| 5-2-5 | Materials — planning dependency Rule: Expedite critical items; maintain lead times and buffers. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. She is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is concerned that the new process lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure the project's long-term operational success. | Procurement escalated the Equipment Package; understated schedule risk. If Project Management isn’t aligned, Project Management inherits schedule drift and poor visibility. I can launch expediting for critical items; will your team support coordination on your side? Expose risk: quantify floats/contingency and update the register. This preserves Project Management schedule integrity and KPIs. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. | Equipment Package: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. Insight: QA/CoC proves material pedigree; visual checks don't replace certificates. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Procurement flagged the Equipment Package around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | What must be true for the Equipment Package to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. B) QA/CoC is a nice-to-have; visual inspection replaces certificates. C) Lead time buffers are optional and should be avoided to save cost. D) Equivalents can be used without documentation if vendor is reputable. | A | Correct because: An equipment package contains datasheets, manuals, spares list, and test reports as required. Other options are incorrect because: - B) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Procurement reports the Equipment Package is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 13 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 12 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~4 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Use expediting for all items and skip vendor confirmation to save time. B) Hold the PO as-is; deliver in 13 days and let Project Management absorb ~8 hours idle time. C) Swap to 'similar' items without documentation to avoid approval delay. D) Update PO/spec reference; expedite critical-path lines to cut lead to ≈9 days; secure vendor confirmation; run equivalency/approvals in ~4 days; coordinate resequence by 2 days with Project Management. | D | Correct because it meets the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 13→≈9 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option B) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Procurement owns the Equipment Package and it is constrained by spec reference and vendor confirmations. The next Project Management window starts in ~38 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) ship available items first and sort out the spec reference later B) expedite everything blindly without identifying critical lines C) get vendor confirmation, update the PO/spec reference, flag the site window to stakeholders, and start expediting for critical lines; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) skip vendor confirmation to save time and assume equivalency | C | Correct because: It immediately restores commercial/logistics control with correct references, confirmations, and targeted expediting. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-2 Go to Engineering Dep. Go here to address design change impact. Rule of thumb: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. | 2-5-2 Go back to Procurement Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Comm Plan: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 3-5-2 Go to Construction Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Work Package: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 4-5-2 Go to Operation Dep. Prefer this path when Schedule must be updated. Key point: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. |
| 5-3-1 | Logistics — planning dependency Rule: HSE permits/barriers in place before work starts. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. With a focus on the big picture, she is concerned with project timelines and budgets. She is now directly intervening to resolve a conflict that has escalated beyond the control of individual departments. | In Construction they flagged that the ITP (Testing) is outside change control. If Project Management isn’t aligned, Engineering inherits schedule drift and poor visibility. I can record as-built changes; will your team support coordination on your side? Map dependencies: reflect impacts in schedule and Work Package. It lets Engineering keep design clean and synced across artifacts. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. | ITP (Testing): context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. Insight: Method Statement encodes safe sequence and access; it's not 'tribal knowledge'. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Construction flagged the ITP (Testing) around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What is correct about the ITP (Testing) in an EPC context? | A) Hold points are for QA only; Operation does not sign them. B) An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. C) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. D) As-built records are unnecessary if drawings exist. | B | Correct because: An ITP must be approved before works; it defines roles, criteria, and hold points. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the ITP (Testing) is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 14 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 8 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~5 days; resequencing can save ~2 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 14 days; fix NCRs later. B) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. C) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈9 days); resequence by 2 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~3 days). D) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~3 days and rely on field checks. | C | Correct because it meets the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 14→≈9 days) and limited resequencing (~2 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the ITP (Testing) and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Engineering window starts in ~39 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward B) record as-built changes as needed, set hold points and prerequisites, update the Method Statement/ITP, and coordinate resequencing with site; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | B | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-3 Go to Engineering Dep. If you need Comm Plan aligned: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 2-5-3 Go to Procurement Dep. If the blocker is spec/po mismatch, this node applies: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 4-5-3 Go to Operation Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Risk Register: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 3-5-3 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when Schedule must be updated. Key point: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. |
| 5-3-2 | QC/NCR — planning dependency Rule: NCRs handled per quality plan; keep as-built traceability. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Alexei Petrov | Head of Engineering | #2474C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alexei-Petrov.bmp | Alexei Petrov is the Head of Engineering. He is concerned about the impact of Project Management's new processes on his team's ability to get work done, and he believes this is a result of Engineering's inability to deliver on time. | Construction just noted the As-built Package: not communicated to stakeholders. From Project Management side, without control, Procurement loses milestone integrity and risk clarity. I can revise the Method Statement; will your team support coordination on your side? Expose risk: quantify floats/contingency and update the register. This lets Procurement place correct orders and hold logistics windows. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I will also attach a one-page summary for quick review and add impacted tags/items. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. For traceability, I’ll link the RFI/ECN number and cross-reference related documents. Then wrap it with a short comms note to stakeholders so everyone aligns. | As-built Package: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: As-built records capture deviations and final tags for traceability. Insight: ITP hold points prevent silent failures; approvals must precede works. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Construction flagged the As-built Package around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | What must be true for the As-built Package to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) As-built records capture deviations and final tags for traceability. B) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. C) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. D) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. | A | Correct because: As-built records capture deviations and final tags for traceability. Other options are incorrect because: - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - D) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. | Construction reports the As-built Package is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 24 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 7 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~2 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~8 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 24 days; fix NCRs later. B) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. C) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~2 days and rely on field checks. D) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈22 days); resequence by 3 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~2 days). | D | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 24→≈22 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the As-built Package and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Procurement window starts in ~70 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) coordinate resequencing with site, set hold points and prerequisites, record as-built changes as needed, and update the Method Statement/ITP; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward C) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-3 Go to Engineering Dep. For clarity on Comm Plan, follow the rule: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 2-5-3 Go to Procurement Dep. Go here to address spec/po mismatch. Rule of thumb: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 4-5-3 Go to Operation Dep. When next step is about Risk Register, apply: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 5-5-3 Go to Project Management Dep. If you must surface the risk and secure leadership alignment. |
| 5-3-4 | Method Statement — planning dependency Rule: Material traceability maintained through installation. Impact/Action: Impact on Ops safety/readiness. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. She is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is holding up a key deliverable from Construction because she believes their new process lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure the project's long-term operational success. | Construction escalated the Method Statement; missing dependency mapping. If Project Management isn’t aligned, Operation inherits schedule drift and poor visibility. I can coordinate temporary works; will your team support coordination on your side? Map dependencies: reflect impacts in schedule and Work Package. It lets Operation operate without safety waivers. Open a short review session with owners; capture actions and due dates. | Method Statement: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. Rule in play: The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. Insight: Method Statement encodes safe sequence and access; it's not 'tribal knowledge'. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Construction flagged the Method Statement around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of unsafe procedures and startup delays for Operation. | What is correct about the Method Statement in an EPC context? | A) The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. B) Method Statements are optional when the team is experienced. C) As-built records are unnecessary if drawings exist. D) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. | A | Correct because: The Method Statement defines the safe sequence of work with HSE controls. Other options are incorrect because: - B) downgrades mandatory controls to optional, which violates EPC governance. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Construction reports the Method Statement is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 22 days; the site window for Operation work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~1 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 22 days; fix NCRs later. B) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~1 days and rely on field checks. C) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. D) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈16 days); resequence by 1 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~1 days). | D | Correct because it best approaches the Operation window by combining formal control (approvals in ~1 days) with targeted expediting (lead 22→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option B) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option C) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Method Statement and it is constrained by design interfaces and revision alignment. The next Operation window starts in ~12 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward B) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later C) record as-built changes as needed, coordinate resequencing with site, set hold points and prerequisites, and update the Method Statement/ITP; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | C | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-3 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Comm Plan must be updated. Key point: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 2-5-3 Go to Procurement Dep. If you need Work Package aligned: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 3-5-3 Go to Construction Dep. To proceed with Schedule safely, remember: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. | 4-5-3 Go to Operation Dep. When next step is about Risk Register, apply: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. |
| 5-3-5 | Installation — planning dependency Rule: ITP must be signed before works/tests; no start without approvals. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. She is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is holding up a key deliverable from Operation because she believes their new process lacks the necessary checks and balances to ensure the project's long-term operational success. | In Construction they flagged that the Installation Plan is outside change control. On Project Management side, no fix means Project Management faces misaligned dependencies and KPIs. I can prepare site access and prerequisites; will your team support coordination on your side? Map dependencies: reflect impacts in schedule and Work Package. It helps Project Management align dependencies and communications. Share the update and list approvers; if timing is tight, set a checkpoint in 24 hours. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. | Installation Plan: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. Insight: Method Statement encodes safe sequence and access; it's not 'tribal knowledge'. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Construction flagged the Installation Plan around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | What is correct about the Installation Plan in an EPC context? | A) Hold points slow the job and should be minimized or skipped. B) As-built records are unnecessary if drawings exist. C) ITP approval can be done after work starts to save time. D) Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. | D | Correct because: Installation depends on prerequisites and readiness; sequence must be explicit. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) puts control after execution, defeating prevention and quality gates. | Construction reports the Installation Plan is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 8 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 8 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~3 days; resequencing can save ~1 days. Missing the window causes ~20 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~3 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Start work out-of-sequence while waiting the full 8 days; fix NCRs later. B) Push Procurement to expedite everything and ignore site readiness constraints. C) Update Method Statement/ITP; set hold points; request Procurement to expedite only critical materials (lead ≈5 days); resequence by 1 days to meet the window; keep approvals on record (~3 days). D) Proceed without ITP approvals to save ~3 days and rely on field checks. | C | Correct because it meets the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~3 days) with targeted expediting (lead 8→≈5 days) and limited resequencing (~1 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Construction owns the Installation Plan and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Project Management window starts in ~69 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) coordinate resequencing with site, record as-built changes as needed, update the Method Statement/ITP, and set hold points and prerequisites; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. B) ignore permits/access barriers and move forward C) start out-of-sequence work to 'use the crew' and handle NCRs later D) run works without ITP approvals to avoid delay | A | Correct because: It immediately restores site control by gating works with approved plans and sequencing. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-3 Go to Engineering Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Comm Plan: Maintain risk register with contingencies and owners. | 2-5-3 Go to Procurement Dep. Prefer this path when Work Package must be updated. Key point: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 4-5-3 Go to Operation Dep. If you need Risk Register aligned: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 3-5-3 Go to Construction Dep. To proceed with Schedule safely, remember: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. |
| 5-4-1 | Operating Procedures — planning dependency Rule: Procedures must reflect latest tags and operating limits. Impact/Action: Impact on Eng rework and doc sync. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. She is concerned with the impact of Operation's late deliverables on the project timeline and is trying to mediate the conflict between Operation and Engineering. | Operation just noted the O&M Manual: outside change control. From Project Management side, without control, Engineering loses milestone integrity and risk clarity. I can confirm maintenance access; will your team support coordination on your side? Map dependencies: reflect impacts in schedule and Work Package. This unblocks Engineering to proceed without version noise. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. I can include a before/after snapshot so owners see exactly what changes. Good — add owners and checkpoints; highlight any no-go conditions. For traceability, I’ll link the RFI/ECN number and cross-reference related documents. Close by notifying the site/ops leads so they can plan accordingly. | O&M Manual: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — redesign churn and document noise for Engineering. Rule in play: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Insight: Handover needs a complete, verified dossier — no partial acceptance. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Operation flagged the O&M Manual around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of redesign and document churn for Engineering. | What is correct about the O&M Manual in an EPC context? | A) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. B) O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. C) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. D) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. | B | Correct because: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. | Operation reports the O&M Manual is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 23 days; the site window for Engineering work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~32 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~32 hours. B) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈17 days) and allow Engineering resequencing by 3 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). C) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. D) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Engineering window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 23→≈17 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option D) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option A) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the O&M Manual and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Engineering window starts in ~59 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup B) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later C) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start D) confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, update SOP/limits, gate with PTW/LOTO, and release a startup readiness note; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. | D | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-4 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 2-5-4 Go to Procurement Dep. To proceed with Schedule safely, remember: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. | 3-5-4 Go to Construction Dep. Go here to address constructability clash. Rule of thumb: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 4-5-4 Go to Operation Dep. To proceed with Change Order safely, remember: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. |
| 5-4-2 | O&M Manuals — planning dependency Rule: Temporary operations require defined risks and controls. Impact/Action: Impact on Proc orders and lead time. | Alexei Petrov | Head of Engineering | #2474C4 | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Alexei-Petrov.bmp | Alexei Petrov is the Head of Engineering. He is concerned about the impact of Project Management's new processes on his team's ability to get work done, and he believes this is a result of Engineering's inability to deliver on time. | Operation just noted the Operating Limits: outside change control. If Project Management isn’t aligned, Procurement inherits schedule drift and poor visibility. I can prepare startup readiness note; will your team support coordination on your side? Map dependencies: reflect impacts in schedule and Work Package. It prevents Procurement from ordering the wrong items and burning buffers. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. | Operating Limits: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — wrong orders and lead‑time slips for Procurement. Rule in play: Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. Insight: Handover needs a complete, verified dossier — no partial acceptance. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Operation flagged the Operating Limits around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of wrong orders and lead-time slips for Procurement. | What is correct about the Operating Limits in an EPC context? | A) Handover can proceed without complete documentation if the schedule is tight. B) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. C) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. D) Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. | D | Correct because: Limits include normal and transient ranges with references to calculations. Other options are incorrect because: - A) removes required approvals/documentation, breaking traceability and compliance. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the Operating Limits is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 17 days; the site window for Procurement work is in 3 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~32 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~4 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. B) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈11 days) and allow Procurement resequencing by 3 days; keep approvals formal (~4 days). C) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. D) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~32 hours. | B | Correct because it best approaches the Procurement window by combining formal control (approvals in ~4 days) with targeted expediting (lead 17→≈11 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option A) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option C) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option D) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Operating Limits and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Procurement window starts in ~14 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start B) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup C) gate with PTW/LOTO, confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, release a startup readiness note, and update SOP/limits; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later | C | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-4 Go to Engineering Dep. To proceed with Work Package safely, remember: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 2-5-4 Go to Procurement Dep. To proceed with Schedule safely, remember: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. | 3-5-4 Go to Construction Dep. To proceed with Risk Register safely, remember: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 4-5-4 Go to Operation Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Change Order: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. |
| 5-4-3 | Operating Limits — planning dependency Rule: Design must consider maintenance access and reliability. Impact/Action: Impact on Constr sequence and rework. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. She is a decisive and detail-oriented manager. She is holding up a key deliverable from Operation because she believes their handover documentation lacks the necessary detail to proceed with Engineering. | Operation just noted the Permit-to-Work: outside change control. If Project Management isn’t aligned, Construction inherits schedule drift and poor visibility. I can update SOPs and limits; will your team support coordination on your side? Close the loop: define who approves and who is informed. It enables Construction to keep sequence and avoid rework on site. Post the package to the shared repository and tag owners; request sign-off deadlines. | Permit-to-Work: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — resequencing, NCRs and rework on site for Construction. Rule in play: PTW includes LOTO and explicit hazard controls for the task. Insight: LOTO and permits are 'go/no‑go' gates; shortcuts surface as incidents later. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Operation flagged the Permit-to-Work around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of resequencing and rework on site for Construction. | Which statement best describes good practice for the Permit-to-Work? | A) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. B) PTW includes LOTO and explicit hazard controls for the task. C) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. D) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. | B | Correct because: PTW includes LOTO and explicit hazard controls for the task. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - D) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the Permit-to-Work is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 16 days; the site window for Construction work is in 12 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~6 days; resequencing can save ~3 days. Missing the window causes ~24 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. B) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~24 hours. C) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. D) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈10 days) and allow Construction resequencing by 3 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). | D | Correct because it meets the Construction window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 16→≈10 days) and limited resequencing (~3 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the Permit-to-Work and it is constrained by constructability and site sequence. The next Construction window starts in ~49 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup B) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start C) gate with PTW/LOTO, confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, update SOP/limits, and release a startup readiness note; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. D) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later | C | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-4 Go to Engineering Dep. Prefer this path when Work Package must be updated. Key point: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 2-5-4 Go to Procurement Dep. Take this route to enforce control on Schedule: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. | 3-5-4 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when Risk Register must be updated. Key point: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 4-5-4 Go to Operation Dep. When next step is about Change Order, apply: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. |
| 5-4-5 | Permits — planning dependency Rule: Assess OPEX impact of changes before acceptance. Impact/Action: Impact on PM schedule/risk. | Sarah Wilson | Project Director | #00A65A | https://edm.mplm.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Sarah-Wilson.bmp | Sarah Wilson is the Project Director. With a focus on the big picture, she is concerned with project timelines and budgets. She is now directly intervening to resolve a conflict that has escalated beyond the control of individual departments. | From Operation we heard the O&M Manual needs attention — not communicated to stakeholders. On Project Management side, no fix means Project Management faces misaligned dependencies and KPIs. I can confirm maintenance access; will your team support coordination on your side? Expose risk: quantify floats/contingency and update the register. It helps Project Management align dependencies and communications. Send the change note plus rev log; if risks rise, brief Project Management for schedule alignment. I'll note interim controls so work can proceed safely while we finalize. Please annotate affected areas on the model/drawing for clarity. | O&M Manual: context — dependency and schedule control; consequence — milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. Rule in play: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Insight: Operating limits bind SOPs and interlocks; transient modes matter most at startup. Influence of Project Management: Dependencies and approvals orchestrate timing; unmanaged, they degrade KPIs. | Operation flagged the O&M Manual around dependency and schedule control; ignoring it creates risk of milestone drift and unclear KPIs for Project Management. | What must be true for the O&M Manual to be acceptable to stakeholders? | A) PTW is for high-risk work only; routine tasks can skip it. B) Operating procedures can rely on tribal knowledge and do not need updates. C) Operating limits are implicit; operators will stay within them intuitively. D) O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. | D | Correct because: O&M manuals describe maintenance practices and are mapped to actual tags. Other options are incorrect because: - A) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - B) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. - C) conflicts with EPC best practice for control, safety, or traceability. | Operation reports the O&M Manual is affected by dependency and schedule control. Current lead time is 24 days; the site window for Project Management work is in 5 days. Expediting can reduce lead time by ~8 days; resequencing can save ~0 days. Missing the window causes ~12 hours of idle/rework. Formal approval (e.g., RFI/ECN/equivalency) takes ~2 days. | Given these constraints, which plan best balances control and schedule? | A) Bypass permits/LOTO to hit the window and document later. B) Reject any expediting and let schedule slip by ~12 hours. C) Accept operating with outdated limits to avoid delay, then fix SOPs post-start. D) Gate with permits/LOTO and updated SOP/limits; request critical expediting (lead ≈16 days) and allow Project Management resequencing by 0 days; keep approvals formal (~2 days). | D | Correct because it best approaches the Project Management window by combining formal control (approvals in ~2 days) with targeted expediting (lead 24→≈16 days) and limited resequencing (~0 days), preserving traceability. Other options fail because: - Option C) accept idle/rework costs instead of preventing them. - Option A) remove required approvals/documentation, breaking compliance and traceability. - Option B) optimize everything blindly (or ignore readiness), inflating cost/risk without solving the constraint. | Operation owns the O&M Manual and it is constrained by operability and safety gates. The next Project Management window starts in ~30 hours and will be missed without immediate action. | What should you do right now? | A) operate under old SOPs and update documentation post-start B) gate with PTW/LOTO, confirm acceptance criteria with Operation, update SOP/limits, and release a startup readiness note; document the change and link approvals so downstream teams can proceed. C) hand over partially and complete the dossier after startup D) bypass PTW/LOTO to keep the date and document later | B | Correct because: It immediately restores operational safety and readiness through permits, SOP/limits, and acceptance checks. Other options are wrong because they either: - proceed with outdated/unsafe information, creating rework or incidents; - skip mandatory approvals/permits, breaking compliance and traceability; - or escalate/shift dates without concrete actions, which does not unblock work. | 1-5-4 Go to Engineering Dep. If the blocker is design change impact, this node applies: Work Packages include scope, dependencies, resources, DoD. | 2-5-4 Go to Procurement Dep. To proceed with Schedule safely, remember: Schedule reflects approved changes; communicate risks promptly. | 3-5-4 Go to Construction Dep. Prefer this path when Risk Register must be updated. Key point: Changes managed formally; integrate ECN/CO into plan. | 4-5-4 Go to Operation Dep. Go here to address operational constraints. Rule of thumb: Stakeholder approvals and communications are tracked. |