Turnaround readiness: which work packages are actually supported?

Topics: refinery turnaround management; turnaround material readiness; shutdown work package planning; turnaround readiness dashboard.

A turnaround dashboard reports 90% readiness. The remaining ten per cent includes a document required by one package, a material reservation for another and an unresolved contractor assignment. The headline suggests the programme is almost ready. It does not show which packages can progress through their next authorised decision.

Assess each package against the prerequisites for its next review milestone. A completed-check percentage describes how many checks are closed; it says nothing about the effort involved or whether an essential dependency is still missing.

Begin with the package version

Identify the work-package number, approved scope revision, planned date or window, responsible planner and relevant asset references. Link each prerequisite to that version. A document accepted for an earlier scope may be unsuitable for a later one even when its own revision has not changed.

The planning lead coordinates the evidence. Materials owns the supply and reservation position. The contractor coordinator maintains assignment evidence. Document owners maintain approved references. Qualified technical and safety authorities decide their respective acceptance conditions and execution permissions.

OISD's standards catalogue and PNGRB's technical and safety regulation index are source-discovery points for the qualified team. Neither index, on its own, determines the gates for a particular turnaround package. OISD catalogue, PNGRB T4S index

Replace the average with an evidence view

Illustrative example. Package T-214 has ten applicable planning prerequisites. Nine have accepted evidence. The remaining item is a required approved document reference. The progress measure is 9/10, or 90%; the package's planning-evidence status remains incomplete.

A second package, T-215, has eight applicable prerequisites and two criteria formally determined not to apply. All eight are evidenced. Its status can be complete for that defined planning review, with the two applicability decisions visible. Counting the two non-applicable checks as unfinished would be misleading; silently deleting them would lose the rationale.

T-216 illustrates a subtle failure. Its earlier completion was valid for the previous schedule. Moving the date changes a dependency. Preserve the earlier decision and open the affected gate for review; do not erase the history or carry the green status forward automatically.

Define what the review is deciding. A package may be complete enough for scope review while still missing evidence required for a later schedule commitment. Give each milestone its own criteria and show the milestone beside the status. This avoids calling a package universally “ready” because it passed an earlier, narrower check.

Make each gate answerable

A useful gate has an applicability decision, evidence requirement, authoritative source, accountable reviewer, current disposition and the package version it supports. “Materials ready” is too vague if it could mean ordered, physically received, accepted or reserved.

For a material prerequisite, use the status that the approved planning process actually requires, with the item and reservation references. For a contractor prerequisite, show the authorised assignment status rather than copying personal files into the dashboard. For a document prerequisite, show the approved revision and its applicability to the package.

Where procurement information is involved, the adopted requirement should be traceable to the purchase or package record. JIP33 can provide a document framework where selected by the purchaser; it does not establish package readiness. JIP33 FAQ

An unknown answer should remain unknown. A missing reviewer is different from a reviewer rejecting evidence, and both differ from an approved not-applicable decision. Give them distinct dispositions because each needs a different next action.

Review changes by dependency

The dashboard should answer what needs reconsideration when scope, timing, supplier, contractor or document version changes. It does not need a complex graph to start; a table linking each gate to its dependencies may be sufficient.

For T-216, a revised schedule should notify the reservation owner and retain the material status as awaiting reconfirmation. It need not reopen an unrelated evidence item whose validity is unaffected. The authorised owner determines the impact; the system surfaces the relationship.

If a package is split, carry evidence only where its scope still applies. If packages are combined, preserve their original references and resolve conflicts explicitly. Copying every completed checkbox into the new package can transfer approvals beyond their intended scope.

Check dependencies shared across packages. Two packages may each show a confirmed reservation against the same single spare or contractor resource. Those individual records can look complete while the combined schedule is unsupported. Show the shared reference and competing dates to the planning lead; stores or the resource owner must confirm an allocation that supports the agreed sequence. Do not count the same commitment twice.

Design the review screen around decisions

Show incomplete packages, their essential blockers, owners, age and last evidence update. Allow drill-down to the source record. A separate progress chart can show the volume of completed work, but the meeting should be able to see the actual unresolved prerequisites without interpreting an average.

Measure packages with all applicable planning prerequisites evidenced, stale links, reopened gates after changes and blocker age. Report the cutoff time and the version of the package population. Removing difficult packages from the denominator requires a recorded scope decision, otherwise improvement may be an artefact of reporting.

Keep maintenance, procurement and document records in their existing systems where they work well. The dashboard needs reliable links and update times, plus a way to flag changed dependencies. A daily review list should name the package, blocker, owner and decision date; meeting notes should record the disposition rather than simply repeat the colour on the dashboard.

Summary and next actions

A useful readiness review tells the planning lead which packages have the evidence needed for their next decision and why the others do not. That is more actionable than an overall completion percentage, while leaving technical acceptance and work permission with the right authorities.

1. Select five packages and define the scope and schedule versions being reviewed.
2. Agree each gate's applicability, evidence, owner and acceptance authority.
3. Rehearse a schedule change and a missing essential document; confirm that affected statuses reopen visibly.
4. Use the CMMS–ERP integration guide to resolve conflicting system ownership before connecting the dashboard.

A package-readiness assessment can work through the five selected packages and one shared-resource conflict. Its output should be a milestone-specific evidence map and a list of system gaps for the turnaround lead to review.