Management of Change: Initiated Change
We continue our discussion to do with Management of Change (MOC). Previous posts in this series are:
Types of Change
If change is to be managed properly, it is necessary to understand the types of change that are typically made on a facility — each will require its own response. Changes can be categorized as follows:
Initiated change.
Non-initiated change.
Temporary change.
Emergency change.
Administrative and organizational change.
In this post we look at the first of these: Initiated Change.
Initiated Change
An Initiated Change takes place when someone, usually a manager or an engineer, decides that he or she would like to modify the current operation so as to improve the facility’s economic performance. This is the type of change that most people think of when they hear the term Management of Change. The following are examples of Initiated Change:
A process engineer proposes to increase reactor temperatures in order to achieve higher production rates.
The operations manager plans to manufacture a new grade of chemical using existing equipment.
A chemist suggests the use of a new additive to improve yields.
An operator suggests a change in the control system on a distillation column be changed in order to minimize product quality variations.
A maintenance engineer proposes that the size of a pump motor be increased in order to reduce the number of pump trips.
An instrument engineer proposes to purchase a control valve from a new vendor.
The engineering manager proposes to use a different grade of stainless steel for a section of piping.
In each of these examples, the facility operations are being taken to a point that is outside the previous operating envelope and possibly outside the pre-defined safe limits. Therefore, the Management of Change process should be used.
Large initiated changes that involve numerous modifications to equipment, instrument systems and administrative procedures will almost always receive a full Management of Change review. Small changes, which can often be implemented quickly and easily, are likely to receive fewer checks and reviews. Some of the dismissive terms sometimes used to describe these small changes ― terms such as ‘quick and dirty’, ‘one minute change’ and ‘midnight engineering’ ― are indicative of this way of thinking. A moment’s reflection, however, shows that this line of reasoning is disingenuous. Indeed, experience has shown that it is often the small changes that lead to serious accidents.
