an evaluation of the impact of electronic marshalling on the project execution process

DeltaV v11 Project Execution Study February 2010 –

www.EmersonProcess.com/DeltaV

An Evaluation of the Impact of Electronic Marshalling on the Project Execution Process

This paper assesses the technical and commercial Impact of change on a recently executed project using traditional marshalling methods versus a DeltaV I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling execution. It will attempt to identify and quantify the impact and changes to work processes along with the cost and schedule benefits available to EPC contractors and end users.


Contents

Introduction 3

The Objectives and Deliverables 3

DeltaV v11 Technology Overview 4

Electronic Marshalling and FOUNDATION fieldbus™ Power Conditioners 5

Project Impact during Execution 7

The Impact of Change on the Original Schedule and Cost 8

What Would the Implications of DeltaV v11 be to the Project? 11

The Application of DeltaV v11 technology to Core Processes 13

Revised Project Schedule for DeltaV v11 14

Cost Implications of DeltaV v11 16

Conclusions 18

Figures

Figure 1 – Engineering tasks impacted by I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling 5

Figure 2 – Conventional Cabinets (Left) versus Electronic Marshalling (Right) 6

Figure 3 – The DeltaV v11 I/O and CHARM card design 6

Figure 4 – FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ with external power (left) and with integral power (right) 7

Figure 5 – Original Schedule with key engineering milestones 8

Figure 6 – The impact of Modpack 1 on the original schedule 9

Figure 7 – Extended original schedule to incorporate Modpack’s 1 and 2 10

Figure 8 – Contractor ‘Core Processes’ for Conventional I/O Systems 11

Figure 9 – Emerson Project Process for Conventional I/O 12

Figure 10 – Contractor Process with I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling 13

Figure 11 – Emerson Core Process for I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling 14

Figure 12 – Revised Project Schedule using DeltaV v11 I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling 15

Figure 13 – Electronic Marshalling benefits in a FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ execution 17

Figure 14 – Electronic Marshalling benefits in a traditional wired marshalling execution 18

Tables

Table 1: Base Case 16

Table 2: Electronic Marshalling with CHARMS in the field 16


Introduction

Project schedules today rarely allow for the exploration of alternative solutions or for the consideration of unique approaches. Traditional technology and work processes have constrained the ability to incorporate design changes during the engineering lifecycle which has led in many cases to rework, cost escalation, schedule extension and conflict amongst contracting partners.

With the growing recognition of the importance of early integration of the control systems provider being crucial to successful project execution, the traditional contractor and supplier roles have changed. System suppliers have now become solution providers under the guise of a Main Automation Contractor (MAC), where they are responsible not only for the Integrated Control and Safety System (ICSS), but also the incorporation of a number of disparate systems and packages from various suppliers. This early integration presents opportunities to investigate new technologies that provide the best solution to meet client and project requirements, such as Emerson’s DeltaV with I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling.

The introduction of the I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology and integral FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ power conditioning provides a new flexible and innovative alternative approach to project implementation that will provide significant benefits such as:

• Reduced costs • Cost and schedule certainty • Increased project efficiency • Technical consistency • Elimination of duplicate engineering activities • Improved change control management

This new technology has the potential to significantly reduce the system footprint by removing the requirement for marshalling cabinets in traditional wired systems and power conditioners when using a FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ digital architecture. More importantly it will have an effect on system design and configuration with the potential to improve change control management reducing the cost of design changes throughout the project lifecycle. The flexibility offered by the I/O on Demand technology allows the project team to make provision early in the execution for any future changes, including the integration of third party packaged equipment.

The intent of this study is for Emerson to capture, document and present the comparison between traditional hardware configurations, engineering processes and the technological benefits of DeltaV v11 release, when applied to a recently executed project using DeltaV v10 with a traditional engineering approach. This has been done in collaboration with a global EPC contractor on a recently completed project.

The Objectives and Deliverables

Having noted the potential benefits of the new technology it is important to quantify these in both technical and commercial terms and evaluate the impact across all areas of the project. As a basis for further development it was also important that the contractor and Emerson understand where each could benefit and the impact on project execution. Therefore in order to do this a clear set of objectives were defined:

• Assess the potential technical and commercial impact of DeltaV I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshalling technology and its impact on project change.


• Identify and quantify commercial benefits for use on future projects. • Communicate the findings to the contractor’s senior engineering and project management team

the DeltaV technology highlighting the benefits across the project lifecycle. • Incorporate the findings into the contractor’s and Emerson’s engineering work processes. • Consider presenting the findings at the Emerson Global Exchange

The current economic environment and the resultant requirements from end users have put particular pressure on both EPC contractor’s and Emerson not only to drive cost and schedule certainty, but also to incorporate innovation and value. The deliverables from the new technology will allow a contractor and Emerson to:

• Provide technical and commercial differentiators and value propositions for use in strategic pursuits.

• Identify joint opportunities for project cost savings. • Provide extra time at the planning stage for scope clarification. • Develop the system design to incorporate future changes with the optimal architecture. • Mitigate the impact of change on the system design, configuration and cost. • Mitigate risk to schedule by planning for potential change early in system design. • Improve project cost control through better change management. • Streamline execution and minimize cabling modifications resulting in a single pass execution. • Generate standard processes and procedures for inclusion in the contractor’s and Emerson’s

project execution procedures which can be used on future projects and will provide a standard execution model both teams.

DeltaV v11 Technology Overview

Since its inception DeltaV has been at the forefront of technological innovation and the release of v11 continues this trend. Whilst retaining the innovative functionality and features of previous releases this new technology addresses the following common issues encountered on projects:

• Late design changes or incomplete data. • Late cable information. • Late mechanical package information. • Marshalling cabinet wiring changes. • Additional I/O. • Controller I/O allocation. • Changing I/O type. • Late design freeze and Factory Acceptance Test (FAT) • FAT complexity. • Efficient and effective project execution.

Whilst there are many new features found in DeltaV v11 which address the above, for brevity this study will concentrate on areas which deliver the most potential benefit.


Electronic Marshalling and FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ Power Conditioners

DeltaV I/O on Demand provides the most differentiating element that will enable reduction of CAPEX (installation & commissioning efforts, cabling, footprint etc.) and project risk, as well as allowing a more flexible planning of design, installation, testing and commissioning program. The use of this new product in the execution of the project will allow late release of I/O allocation to controller nodes and enable easy implementation of late design changes and late cabling information affecting the system marshalling cabinets. This capability has a significant impact on change management on the project and brings flexibility in the scheduling of “Design Freeze” milestones and hardware design activities.

Figure 1 – Engineering tasks impacted by I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling

The DeltaV Electronic Marshalling system is a revolutionary solution that takes away the pains of cross-wiring designs and having to set early milestones for hardware design freeze related to the I/O and cabling information. As shown in Figure 2, it optimises the marshalling cabinet space as this is done electronically simplifying the overall cabinet designs and providing a footprint which is less susceptible to the impact of change as I/O and cabling design becomes more defined.


Figure 2 – Conventional Cabinets (Left) versus Electronic Marshalling (Right)

The I/O backplane can be installed within a cabinet or directly in a field junction box and has integral terminals for landing the multi-core and field cables. This provides cost savings and schedule certainty.

Figure 3 – The DeltaV I/O and CHARM card design


Many new projects opt for a digital architecture in the form of FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ where traditional systems require external power conditioners for the segments. On larger installations the system footprint and cost can be greatly increased when accommodating these within the control cabinets. The new DeltaV technology eliminates this requirement by powering the segment from an integral power source on the S-Series I/O, reducing the cabinet requirements and associated costs as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 – FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ with external power (left) and with integral power (right)

Project Impact during Execution

By applying the Electronic Marshalling technology to a recently completed project which used DeltaV v10 FOUNDATION Fielbus™ technology and engineering processes, it provided the opportunity to assess the impact of the new technology. It is recognized that implementation of Electronic Marshalling will require fundamental changes to existing engineering work processes and whilst these have been captured at a high level, they need to be further developed and adopted within the Emerson and EPC contractor processes and procedures. These work process changes will enable the benefits embedded within DeltaV to be realized to their fullest extent. The results of this investigation are summarized in the following section.


The Impact of Change on the Original Project Schedule

The project used in this study began in January 2007 with an expected shipping date of January 2009. The schedule, along with key engineering milestone dates are shown below in figure 5.

Figure 5 – Original Schedule with key engineering milestones

The initial design development phase for the base scope challenged both the contractor and Emerson as design data, particularly from third party package vendors, was not available or received late during execution. As a result the data available at the April 2007 design freeze date was incomplete. However in order to meet the project schedule this was used for the base scope implementation. It was recognized by both parties that changes may be required as further design data became available.

In June 2008 revised design information was received in the form of Modpack 1. This initiated substantial changes which extended the design phase activities. Significant re-engineering effort was required in order to meet the existing January 2009 shipping date. However after evaluation of Modpack 1 the schedule was extended by one month. This major change resulted in a considerable cost increase to the project. The revised key dates are shown in Figure 6.


Figure 6 – The impact of Modpack 1 on the original schedule

As a result of design development and receipt of mechanical package information an additional significant change occurred in December 2008 in the form of Modpack 2, requiring a reissue of the instrument database and all associated design data including P&ID’s instrument index, cause and effects etc. Incorporating these new requirements meant there was a significant impact on the schedule extending it by some seven months from the original date as shown in Figure 7. Modpack’s 3 and 4 were also released at this point; however they were small in nature and could be accommodated within the revised Modpack 2 schedule. It should be noted that in developing the schedule the customers commissioning date was a critical milestone for all contracting parties.

For Emerson the addition of Modpack’s 1, 2, 3 and 4 and the schedule compression to meet critical dates, meant an increase in workload requiring extra resources in all project engineering disciplines. In many cases the true impact of the Modpack’s was unclear until a full evaluation had been done or work already underway had been completed. Trying to quantify the cost impact of the additional work under these circumstances added further commercial complexity to what was already a complex project.


As a result of these changes some engineering tasks were deferred to be completed at site in order to meet the shipping date.

Figure 7 – Extended original schedule to incorporate Modpack’s 1 and 2

The effect of late changes previously described had a significant impact on the original schedule and the additional resources required increased the workload for all parties. The overall result led to a considerable cost escalation.

The question to be answered in this study is what impact I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshalling could have had on the execution, if implemented on this project. By reverse application of new technology on this project we can define and illustrate the benefits more clearly and with confidence.

What Would the Implications of DeltaV v11 be to the Project?

The cost escalation on the project was in two main areas, namely:

• Physical hardware, cabinet and wiring plus associated software change and testing


• Associated time, resources and personnel required to implement change using traditional processes

The I/O on Demand in the form of CHARMS hardware is in essence an “enabler” within the project execution process, allowing more time in the design phases and later freeze dates. Therefore the major impact on the project will occur in the execution work processes and the time needed for their completion.

Both the contractor and Emerson follow standard industry engineering work processes which are based on a “single pass” execution. However during this evaluation there was an impact from design development, and late and incomplete mechanical package information. This resulted in rework and schedule creep.

The ‘core process’ for the contractor when using traditional I/O technology is shown in figure 8. The P&ID’s are developed and from there the Instrument Database containing details required by the system vendor such as tag lists and cabling information, enabling the start of their own engineering design process activities is generated.

Figure 8 –Contractor ‘Core Processes’ for Conventional I/O Systems

The P&ID’s and instrument database continue to be developed during the project until close out. Therefore the scope and information required by Emerson is not fully defined and subject to change. Emerson will use preliminary cable data for system engineering in order to meet the system engineering and schedule milestones.


Figure 9 shows the actual processes used during execution. This shows that much of the work for Emerson relied on having the final cabling data, which was not available until much later in the project execution.

The resultant change and rework related to this issue is usually the source of cost escalation and schedule extension.

Figure 9 – Emerson Project Process for Conventional I/O


The Application of DeltaV v11 technology to Core Processes

For the EPC contractor the I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology has a significant impact in that Emerson does not require the final cabling data until much later in the project. Emerson only needs to have an indication of the anticipated size of the system in terms of I/O and the preliminary cable information. The contractor and Emerson can make an allowance for unknown or late preliminary design data at the very start of the project with little or no impact on future changes and cost escalation. This is illustrated in Figure 10.

Figure 10 – Contractor Process with I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling


For Emerson the execution process becomes far less reliant on receiving final cabling information. Using the calculated system size the cabinets are built and shipped to site when final cabling data is available. The addition of further I/O is a relatively simple task and has no major cost implication over and above any new system hardware. The site installation contractor can install and land multi-core cables. The CHARMS can be installed on site when final cabling details have been established and loop checking and a Site Acceptance Test (SAT) performed as shown in Figure 11.

Figure 11 – Emerson Core Process for I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling

In comparing figures 9 and 11, we can see that the execution work processes are significantly simplified for Emerson mitigating the potential for change, engineering rework and cost escalation. For the contractor the risk on moving forward with preliminary design data and understanding that design development will not unduly impact the execution and schedule is a major benefit. It also provides a significantly higher level of cost certainty, engineering consistency, improved management of any potential change and an optimal system architecture.

Revised Project Schedule for DeltaV v11

We have seen in Figure 7 that late changes in the form of Modpack’s 1 and 2, required significant change and figure 9 shows that the design phase is extended by rework and retesting..


By applying the new DeltaV hardware, technology and the improved and simplified engineering processes we can show that despite the major change requirements (ModPacks1 & 2) the original schedule with its January 2009 shipping date would only have been extended by two months to March 2009 (as shown in Figure 12) as opposed to the actual schedule extension to July 2009 as previously shown (figure 7)..

A more detailed analysis identifies the implications:

• The design freeze date could have been 10 months later to March 2008 • Modpack 1 would not have been required and would been part of normal design development. • Single pass execution could have been possible • Mechanical package vendor data could have been more effectively segregated • Modpack 2 could have been implemented in half the time • Modpack 2 change analysis and approval cycle would be greatly simplified • Reduced reissuing of documentation • Hardware in not on the critical path • 2 years float in system design and build • 2.5 years float in cabling allocation


Figure 12 – Revised Project Schedule using DeltaV v11 I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling

Technology

Cost Implications of DeltaV v11

Although this project incorporated a number of different systems into the overall solution, the new technology is applicable to the DeltaV portion only. Potential cost savings can be generated in areas such as physical hardware, engineering processes and the associated resources.

The actual project comprised a total of 1518 I/O of various types as detailed in the following table, and this configuration is the base case against which other alternatives have been evaluated.

Instrument Description

Traditional Wired I/O

Traditional Fieldbus

TOTAL


AI 66 672 738 AO 14 103 117 DI 282 183 465 DO 22 176 198

1518

Table 1: Base Case

Using the new system calculation tool¹ a number of scenarios were developed. The first alternative case assessed was the impact of the integrated H1 FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ power conditioners that became available with DeltaV v11 and ‘S’ Series I/O cards. Replacing the traditional approach to FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ and utilizing the integrated power feature would have eliminated the need for additional cabinet space and have reduced the associated engineering and installation time, resulting in a reduction of the installed cost of the system by $232,000.

The second, more significant case assumed the use of Electronic Marshalling with CHARMS installed in the field in standard, ex-stock junction boxes. Some of the traditionally wired instrumentation in the base case could have used this new technology, but not all. As such, the 1518 I/O were assumed to be implemented as follows:

Instrument Description

Traditional Wired I/O

CHARMS in Field

TOTAL

AI 30 708 738 AO 6 111 117 DI 78 387 465 DO 10 188 198

1518

Table 2: Electronic Marshalling with CHARMS in the field

In this Total Installed Cost (TIC) analysis, savings over the base case come from significantly reduced cabling infrastructure (Ethernet cable from junction boxes rather than using conventional multi-core signal cables), elimination of marshalling cabinets, associated engineering and installation activity, and significantly reduced overall engineering and design effort. These savings amounted to $2,073,000.

It should be noted that the $2,073,000 does not consider the field device costs or the possibility that the analogue devices might themselves be less expensive than their FOUNDATION fieldbus™ equivalents.

The analysis indicates that I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling using CHARMS in the field has the potential to reduce the installed cost per loop from $5,620 for traditional FOUNDATION fieldbus™ to $4,250 plus the cost of the device and transmitter / DVC providing a saving of 23%. These savings are associated with a project engineering cycle and materials as detailed in Figure 13.


Figure 13 – Electronic Marshalling benefits in a FOUNDATION Fieldbus execution

A further analysis when compared to traditional wired analogue infrastructure the installed cost saving per loop is even more significant at 34% as shown in Figure 14.

Figure 14 – Electronic Marshalling benefits in a traditional wired marshalling execution

Conclusions

A set of objectives were defined at the start of this study and the conclusions are based on each of these.

Objective 1 - Assess the potential technical and commercial impact of DeltaV v11 I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshalling technology and its impact on project change.


It has been clearly demonstrated that if DeltaV I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology had been available and applied to this project it would have produced many benefits and improved the change management process for both Emerson and the contractor when compared with using v10.

These benefits are identified and summarized as follows:

Work Processes

In comparison to traditionally executed systems, the work processes using the new technology are simplified and provide both the contractor and Emerson with flexibility, certainty and a significant improvement in change management. Electronic Marshalling becomes an “enabler” within the execution processes and eliminates some of the traditional execution requirements associated with wired systems. The reduction in tasks is shown in Figure 1.

Following the traditional execution process and in order to support the milestone requirements of Emerson, the contractor issues the instrument database, perhaps before all data has been finalized and before the majority of third party packaged information is available. Cabling details are often at a preliminary stage and not be finalized until the physical plant design has been completed and all information is approved. The issue historically is that this is often too late for Emerson to initiate the system design phase to meet in this case an aggressive schedule and subsequent project milestones.

When executing using I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling on a similar project in the future a contractor will need only provide an estimated I/O count, preliminary instrument and cabling information to enable Emerson to develop a preliminary automation solution. As the project progresses and further information becomes available it can be incorporated relatively easily without requiring large scale changes and intermediate design freezes to align both parties, thus resulting in fewer and later design freezes. The ability to manage and control the changes process is a significant reduction in the technical and commercial risk for the contractor

If Electronic Marshalling technology was utilized on the project the following benefits could have been realized:

• The design freeze date could have been 10 months later • Modpack 1 would not have been required and would been part of normal design development. • Single pass execution could have been possible • Mechanical package vendor data could have been more effectively segregated within the

marshalling cabinets • Modpack 2 could have been implemented in half the time • Modpack 2 change analysis and approval cycle would be greatly simplified

Work process integration

The high level contractor and Emerson execution work processes when using I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshalling are shown in Figures 10 and 11. These will require more detailed definition at each phase utilizing the contractor’s project execution process and Emerson Project Management Office (PMO).


Project Schedule

Change requirements often impact the project schedule creating uncertainty and risk. In this analysis we can see that change requirements issued in the form of Modpacks at specific points during execution extended the project schedule by some 5 months as shown in figures 5, 6 and 7.

Although it was clear to both the contractor and Emerson that change would be required to finalize the package vendor data, the analysis showed one of the most significant limitations in making changes was the technology and associated work processes of a traditional system implementation. The extensive change in scope required a reissue of the entire Instrument Index and associated information resulting in considerable rework, retesting and reissue of documentation. Under such circumstances the resources and time required to evaluate and implement theses changes resulted in increased costs and schedule.

The overall implication for the schedule is that the extension from January 2009 to July 2009 in the existing project caused by Modpack’s 1 and 2, could have been reduced to March 2009 had Electronic Marshalling technology been available and incorporated. This five month reduction along with engineering activities associated with Modpack’s 1 and 2 would have produced a substantial cost saving.

Objective 2 - Identify and quantify commercial benefits for use on future projects.

As previously stated the size and scope of the changes on the original project resulted in increased costs. Using information gathered from the project teams and the Emerson calculation tool we can derive conclusions on the cost benefit of I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshalling technology.

Two scenarios are detailed here. The first “base case” is based on using the DeltaV v11 FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ integral segment power supply function when using the new ‘S-Series’ I/O modules.

These are mounted on a backplane and follow traditional execution methods with marshalling cabinets required. However, benefits are derived from eliminating the need for third party power conditioners and reduction in engineering and cabinet space.

The resultant cost saving for the base case is $232,000

The second scenario is based on Electronic Marshalling and CHARMS I/O in the field housed in Emerson standard junction boxes. We have made an assumption on which I/O could be used as traditional analogue signals and this is detailed in Table 2.

The resultant cost saving for CHARMS in the field is $2,073,000

Perhaps a more generic way to interpret the savings is on a “per loop” basis where a 23% total installed cost saving is derived when using FOUNDATION Fieldbus™ and 34% for traditionally wired installations. Value models are shown in figures 13 and 14, and these may initiate the process of developing a commercial model. Based on our analysis we anticipate other projects would show similar benefits but undertaking further studies would confirm and validate the benefits derived here.


There are also the savings associated with the removal of Modpack 1 and the reduction in time to implement Modpack 2. The scope, size and complexity of the changes would require significant time and work to produce a fully revised cost model. However based on input from the Emerson engineering team we can say with confidence that in the case of Modpack 1, it is estimated that there would have been an approximate 80%² cost reduction by implementing this during base scope definition. Modpack 2 would still be required. However the new technology and work processes would have enabled a much quicker implementation and therefore we estimate that this would have resulted in an approximate 45%² cost reduction.

Objective 3 - Communicate to Contractor’s senior engineering and project management team DeltaV technology highlighting the benefits across the project lifecycle. This study has been developed primarily for use by Emerson and a global EPC contractor as a method of evaluating the benefits of the new technology when applied to a real project. By understanding where the benefits can be developed in terms of producing the optimal system architecture, simplifying work processes and creating opportunities to reduce cost, risk and schedule it will prove beneficial for both parties on future projects. Within Emerson the existing divisional and marketing communication channels would be an appropriate mechanism for communication. We should use our Marquee and Key Account teams to deliver and gain acceptance of I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology before projects arrive into the contractors. A significant key to success in gaining acceptance of the new technology for Emerson and EPC contractors is that end users understand what benefits can be gained for their project.

Objective 4 - Consider presenting the findings at the Emerson Global Exchange The findings with this report are significant and should be communicated to a wider audience. The Emerson Exchange in September 2010 provides an opportunity to do so. Along with this white paper a presentation has been developed highlighting the benefits gained in using I/O on Demand and Electronic Marshalling technology for contractors. With minor modification to protect confidentiality, a revised version of this paper and presentation would be suitable for inclusion in the exchange agenda.

In summary it has been demonstrated that DeltaV I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology would have made a significant impact on the case study project. Many of the change requirements could have been incorporated during the design phase or at later during the project with significantly less impact on cost and schedule. Work processes are simplified for both the EPC contractor and Emerson.

The analysis of the various automation architectures showed that CHARMS in the field would have provided the optimal solution both technically and commercially. However, it should be noted that all options investigated showed some benefits and it is recommended that each project should look at all alternatives before implementation.

Some areas require further definition and development work. In terms of system sizing I/O count accuracy, spare junction box or cabinet capacity for sizing and the controller I/O ratios.

When CHARMS are used who takes responsibility for their installation, when should this occur and what loop checking and commissioning procedures are required?


These considerations are currently outside the scope of this initiative but will require further investigation.

Notes:


1. The DeltaV system calculation tool is the intellectual property of Emerson Process Management and has been developed using both Emerson internal product and engineering process information along with industry standard engineering project execution data. It has been designed to evaluate the alternative system architectures when using I/O on Demand Electronic Marshalling technology and also derive comparisons with traditionally executed systems.

2. Due to the complexity of the change requirements the figure quoted is an indication only of the potential savings from the implementation of Modpack 1 and 2 and is based on information provided by the Emerson project team.


To locate a sales office near you, visit our website at: www.EmersonProcess.com/DeltaV Or call us at: Asia Pacific: 65.777.8211 Europe, Middle East: 41.41.768.6111 North America, Latin America: +1 800.833.8314 or +1 512.832.3774

For large power, water, and wastewater applications contact Power and Water Solutions at: www.EmersonProcess-powerwater.com Or call us at: Asia Pacific: 65.777.8211 Europe, Middle East, Africa: 48.22.630.2443 North America, Latin America: +1 412.963.4000

© Emerson Process Management 2009. All rights reserved. For Emerson Process Management trademarks and service marks, go to: http://www.emersonprocess.com/home/news/resources/marks.pdf. The contents of this publication are presented for informational purposes only, and while every effort has been made to ensure their accuracy, they are not to be construed as warrantees or guarantees, express or implied, regarding the products or services described herein or their use or applicability. All sales are governed by our terms and conditions, which are available on request. We reserve the right to modify or improve the design or specification of such products at any time without notice.

www.EmersonProcess.com/DeltaV

an evaluation of the impact of electronic marshalling on the project execution process

Business