botminds.aiRequest a demo
WorkflowShutdown, Turnaround & Outage

Turnaround Scope Challenge

Turnaround scope challenge that hears each requested job against what the last openings found, argues both ways from the record, and leaves every ruling to the chair.

See the demoBook a demo
Follow a sitting, six days before freeze ↓
The problem

A turnaround scope challenge run on the requester’s word

Review sessions ask the same questions of each item: can it be done on the run, is the risk of waiting acceptable, is the benefit worth the cost. Nobody has the last openings in front of them, so the requester’s rating stands unchecked.

A drum gets opened again at full cost though the last three openings found nothing. A request for routine cleaning hides an exchanger that is getting worse. Inspection work is deferred in a meeting with no trail and no appeal, and sometimes the engineers who proposed the work chair the review.

Built forScope review chairsTurnaround engineersInspection leadsOperations representativesProcess safety managersInternal auditors

The Problem Today

Scope gets cut or kept on the requester’s rating, with nobody looking at what the last openings found.

1,034 h
of panel time to hear the sample worklist at ten minutes an item our estimate

Looked up by hand, if at all

  • Inspections
  • Work orders
  • Job packs
  • Cost
  • Opened again for nothingThree openings found nothing, and the job is back
  • Worse work hidden as routineA cleaning request on a bundle that is failing

The Solution

  1. The request in its own wordsThe requester’s case kept as written, beside the agent’s
  2. The last openings foundOpenings by tag and old tag, each finding cited
  3. Argued both waysTo cut where history says cut, for more where it warns
  4. The chair rulesWith a reason, a second person on cuts, and an appeal path

Built-in controls

  • Inspection cuts need the inspection lead
  • Agents never rule on a job
  • Every deferral is appealable outside the team

What You Get

The freeze holds work the record supports, with every cut named, reasoned and open to appeal.

  • Money moved out on evidenceOpenings that found nothing, cut with a check on the run
  • Jobs made biggerWorsening equipment raised from what was asked
  • A register of deferralsEach with an owner, a condition and an appeal path
Sitting 12, six days before freeze

A turnaround scope challenge sitting, item by item, on the record

9,418 requests merged into 6,204 items reach the challenge. Most are signed. Sitting 12 has twelve items left, heard by a chair from outside the turnaround team.

demoPlant, panel and the money on each item are sample data.

  1. 01Morning

    6,204 items on the docket, and 266 still open

    Scope review chair

    The docket shows every item heard before the freeze, by unit, with what is signed and what is open. 4,871 are kept on course, 812 deferred and 521 dropped. Each unit’s list shows the equipment, the job, the discipline, the cost and the proposed outcome, so the chair sees which ones the agent argued up and which down.

  2. 02Morning

    Open the drum again, $184,000, and three openings found nothing

    Scope review chair

    The hearing puts the requester’s case on the left in his own words: the drum has been opened every time and operators would rather know than guess. On the right, the agent’s case for cutting it. Between them, the risk matrix: evidence lowers the likelihood mark from possible to almost never, below the line.

  3. 03Morning

    No corrosion, no pitting, and a thinnest reading that has not moved

    Scope review chair

    Each opening opens its report. The first internal visual found no corrosion, no pitting and no deposits of note. The next two say the same. Wall readings sit at 0.612 and 0.611 in against a 0.437 in minimum, losing under 0.001 in a year. The next internal is not due until after the turnaround after next.

  4. 0408:09

    The inspection lead opens the plan and signs this exact outcome

    Inspection lead

    A cut to inspection work cannot be ruled without the inspection lead. She opens the inspection plan and signs the exact proposal: defer to the turnaround after next, with a thickness check on the run by a date, with her as owner. A different outcome would need her signature again. The requester already replied: no objection if the check has a date.

  5. 0508:16

    Deferred, with a reason, and the appeal path named on the register

    Scope review chair

    After opening the same plan, the chair rules defer: inside the inspection plan, with a check on the run. On the register goes a line naming who ruled, the second person, the condition and who hears an appeal. The requester has been told. The open count drops by one, and the next item is an exchanger.

  6. 0608:20

    Routine cleaning asked for $96,000; the record argues for more

    Turnaround engineer

    The exchanger was put in for routine cleaning. The agent argues the other way: plugged tubes rose from 12 to 19 to 27 across three openings, against a limit of 59 of 1,180, and the thinnest wall fell from 0.083 to 0.064 in. This bundle cannot be cleaned in place. Evidence raises the likelihood mark above the line.

  7. 0708:30

    Upgraded to a bundle pull with IRIS on all tubes, $416,800

    Scope review chair

    Having opened the last job pack, the chair rules upgrade: the asked scope cannot see the damage. A second name comes from the turnaround engineer. Operations had already replied that it will support the bundle pull. The ruling goes on the register like any other, so a raised job is as traceable as a cut one.

  8. 08Afternoon

    $191.5M as requested, $26.5M moved out, $3.4M added

    Turnaround engineer

    The freeze screen shows where the docket stands: $191.5M as requested, $26.5M moved out, $3.4M added to 143 jobs that were too small, and $168.4M on course. Below it, what stands in the way: items still in a sitting, bulk families unsigned, replies, second signatures and appeals still open. The certificate stays unsigned until each is clear.

Two items, two directions, one record

The same hearing argued one job down and another up.

ItemAskedLast openings foundRuling
Naphtha feed surge drumOpen and inspect, $184,000Nothing, three times; wall steadyDeferred, with a check on the run
Reactor effluent exchangerRoutine cleaning, $96,000Plugged tubes 12, 19, 27Upgraded to a bundle pull with IRIS

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Around the sitting

The deferral register, replies, queues, appeals and the eight questions

Six more screens the chair, requesters, the inspection lead and auditors use.

The registerEvery deferral, drop and upgrade, with who ruled, the second person, the owner, the condition and who hears an appeal.
Right of replyAnyone whose request is proposed for a cut gets five working days to answer, and the chair cannot rule until the window closes.
QueuesWho holds what and the clock on it: set down, replies, second signs, rulings, bulk families and appeals.
AppealsAny inspector can seek review of a denial or deferral, heard by the process safety manager and countersigned.
Inclusion criteria and risk matrixThe eight questions each item is asked, what each means, how many items it decided, and the site risk matrix.
Audit trailEach proposal, reply, concurrence and ruling, with who did it and a check value. Nothing can be changed.

demoSample data, from the working solution.

Rulings, concurrences and appeals belong to named people

The agents prepare and argue the case. People decide it.

No agent rulesThe case writer argues to cut, for more, or makes no case. The chair rules.
Silence is never a clean recordThe history agent finds openings by tag and old tag, and a missing record stays missing.
Legal and safety items are not argued downThe criteria checker never argues against a legal, code or safety function item.
No mark moves without a citationThe risk rater sets likelihood from evidence beside the requester’s own mark, and never lowers consequence alone.
No register line closes itselfThe register clerk writes the line; only the named appeal decider can close it.
The agents

Seven agents prepare each hearing, and none rules on a job

Each hands its work to the next, then to the turnaround engineer and the chair.

Request reader

States the ask and keeps the requester’s words.

  • Never rewrites a requester’s case
History agent

Finds the last three openings by tag and old tag.

  • Never treats silence as a clean record
Criteria checker

Answers the eight inclusion questions.

  • Never argues against a legal, code or safety item
Risk rater

Marks likelihood from evidence beside the request’s own mark.

  • Never moves a mark without a citation
Case writer

Writes the case either way, or no case.

  • Never rules
Reply reader

Reads a reply, checks what it names and retests.

  • Never closes a reply window
Register clerk

Writes the register line for each ruling.

  • Never closes a line

What review chairs ask about a turnaround scope challenge

What is a turnaround scope challenge?

A turnaround scope challenge tests each proposed job before scope freeze: should it be done in this turnaround, as asked, smaller, bigger, or not at all. Here each item is heard against what its last openings found, the agent argues the case from the record, and an independent chair rules with a reason.

Is this a risk based scope review?

Yes. Each item gets likelihood and consequence on your site’s matrix, with the agent’s evidence-based mark shown beside the requester’s own. A cut at or above your line needs the process safety manager.

Does the agent only argue to cut scope?

No. It argues for more where the record warns, such as plugged tubes rising at each opening, and the chair can upgrade a job as readily as defer one.

Who can stop an inspection cut?

The inspection lead concurs on or refuses any cut to inspection work, on the exact outcome proposed. Any inspector can appeal a deferral to a named hearer who is not on the turnaround team.

What happens to a deferred job?

It goes on the deferral register with who ruled, the second person, the owner, a condition such as a thickness check on the run, and who hears an appeal.

Does it help with scope reduction for a turnaround that is over budget?

It shows where the record supports a cut and where it does not. Money moved out and money added are both counted, and nothing is cut without a ruling.

Shutdown, Turnaround & Outage

Other turnaround scope and planning solutions

All 15 solutions →
Turnaround Work Package Planning

Each step cited, and stale ones caught before the crew meets them.

1-min demoTurnaround Schedule Health Check

Collisions the schedule math cannot see, each with a fix a person decides.

1-min demoTurnaround Cost Estimating

One estimate, walked bar by bar from past actuals, each bar open to its source.

1-min demo

Bring the twelve items
of your next sitting.

We’ll set each one beside its last openings and show where the record argues to cut, and where for more.

Book a demoBrowse solutions