At this year's annual CSIA Executive Conference I will be presenting "21 Legal Takeaways in 45 Minutes," with each takeaway corresponding to a different chapter of my new book being published in mid-April by the ISA, The Automation Legal Reference: A Guide to Legal Risk in the Automation, Robotics and Process Industries.
Between now and then, I am previewing all 21 of the takeaways in different forums. Takeaway #1 appeared in the CSIA's March newsletter and, in case you did not see it, it was: The best way to manage risk in an automation project is to see each one as a construction project (as opposed to a software development or equipment deliverable transaction).
Today's is right here in the Connected Community. All are being referenced in "tweets" to my followers on Twitter -- @automationlaw (hashtag #21takeaways).
Takeaway #2 is: Know your project delivery method. There is a fundamental divide between "design-bid-build" projects and "design-build," with most work by integrators (apparently) falling into the latter category in that the end user or upper tier contractor is seeking both the design and installation work from one source---you. But is that always the case? Isn't it frequently true that your design has been constrained by the layout or conceptual framework of a project designer or the owner itself? Also, do you appreciate the important differences between the various sub-categories of design-build, such as engineer-procure-construct (EPC) and design-build-operate-maintain? It is a big picture matter, but as I say in my book, "before you can cut down a tree, you need to find the forest. The forest is the project delivery method; the tree is the risk."