By Eugene le Roux, FSAIRAC, and Eamonn Ryan
Project management, by its very nature, is a complex endeavor fraught with potential pitfalls. This is Part 2 of a four-part series.
A developed product is given to the client for testing. Tirachardz/ Freepik
- The problem: A developed product is given to the client for testing. The client, aiming for a ‘bulletproof’ product, subjects it to extreme, arguably unrealistic, conditions, leading to multiple failures. The contractor argues these testing conditions were beyond the agreed scope.
- Analysis: This conflict arises from a fundamental misalignment of expectations regarding product robustness and testing rigor.
- Client’s perspective: The client desires a highly resilient product and may interpret “robust” or ‘reliable’ broadly, pushing limits to ensure longevity in extreme operational environments.
- Contractor’s perspective: The contractor designs and tests to a defined specification, which may not encompass the extreme conditions the client is now applying. Failures under unagreed conditions are seen as outside their responsibility.
- Diffusion strategy: The solution lies in establishing a jointly agreed-upon, comprehensive Test and Acceptance Plan at the project’s outset. This plan, integrated into the SOW, must clearly define:
- Acceptance criteria: What constitutes successful performance.
- Test procedures: The exact methods, sequences, and durations of all tests.
- Environmental conditions: The precise range of temperatures, pressures, vibrations, and other environmental factors the product will be subjected to during testing.
- Pass/fail thresholds: Quantifiable metrics for success.
- Dispute resolution: A process for addressing unexpected results or disagreements over test validity.
Phased testing, starting with baseline performance and gradually increasing rigor, can also help identify issues early and allow for adjustments. Both parties must formally sign off on this plan, ensuring a shared understanding of what “bulletproof” truly entails for the project.
Scenario 3: reliable components, dismal system performance
- The problem: A contractor assures the client that an air conditioning system’s reliability is guaranteed because “all the components were tried and tested”. However, upon delivery, the system performs dismally.
- Analysis: This common misconception highlights a critical distinction in engineering: component reliability does not automatically guarantee system reliability.
- The flaw: A component (e.g., a compressor, a valve) may function perfectly in isolation or in a controlled test environment. However, when integrated into a complex system, unforeseen interactions, thermal loads, electrical compatibility issues, vibration effects, or control logic flaws can emerge. The overall system’s performance is an emergent property, often greater or lesser than the sum of its parts.
- Integration challenges: Even with good workmanship at the component level, poor system design, inadequate integration engineering, or a lack of comprehensive system-level testing can lead to dismal performance. The ‘tried and tested’ components might be operating outside their optimal parameters within the new system context.
- Diffusion strategy: To avoid this, project managers and engineers must emphasize system-level qualification and integration testing.
- System performance metrics: Define clear, measurable performance metrics for the entire system, not just its individual components.
- Integration testing: Conduct rigorous testing of how components interact within the assembled system, simulating real-world operating conditions.
- Environmental simulation: Test the complete system under the expected operational environment (e.g., thermal chambers for aircon units).
- Comprehensive qualification: Ensure that reliability is qualified at the system level, including mean time between failures (MTBF) and overall availability targets.
The contractor’s motivation should focus on the proven system performance rather than just the individual components.
