EFA Digi — Programme Status Assessment
The decision to replace the legacy ABB system with Emerson DeltaV at Site API was sound and remains so. ABB-to-DeltaV migration is technically complex, and that complexity was anticipated. What was not adequately anticipated was the execution environment required to put that complexity into compliant operational use — and it is the gap between project ambition and delivery capability that has brought EFA Digi to its current position.
A request for a further £13m funding and associated time should be assessed with that context in mind. Additional investment committed to the same structure and resourcing model carries significant risk of producing the same outcome.
DTG's Engagement
DTG proposed taking full design and delivery accountability at project outset. This was declined — AZ wished to retain accountability & control. DTG was engaged in a supporting and advisory capacity.
DTG's role has been in a supporting and advisory capacity for DeltaV design, and to aid AZ in managing Emerson as supplier and system integrator. At project outset, DTG proposed to take direct accountability for design and delivery as an integrated package. That proposal was not accepted. DTG was instead engaged in a supporting and advisory capacity — contributing to hardware and software design and providing informed oversight of Emerson's delivery on AZ's behalf.
DTG has fulfilled that scope — helping ensure software and hardware implementation of the Emerson solution remained broadly on track. However, the constraints of an advisory role in a project of this scale have become increasingly consequential. Recommendations were made, peer reviews conducted and concerns formally raised throughout the programme. In many areas that input was acted upon, to positive effect (technical approach, technical resourcing, functionality design) — while in other areas DTG has been unable to fully influence direction or make sustained positive change (largely in the commissioning, qualification, validation approach).
Assessment of Contributory Factors
Select each factor for detail.
DTG Contributions
The following reflects DTG's delivery within the agreed advisory scope.
What DTG could have done better
In hindsight, we should have pushed harder on our concerns about the commissioning and validation approach and contractor capability. We escalated safety concerns to the point of threatening disengagement — but did we apply that same level of force to our C&Q concerns? We hesitated, because C&Q was not formally our remit. We offered guidance and support, but perhaps became fatigued when our advice was repeatedly unheard or unacted upon.
Being present in person when escalating serious concerns may have added material weight — both in how they were received and in influencing decisions on the ground. Much of DTG's engagement was conducted remotely, and face-to-face escalation at critical moments might have changed outcomes.
The threshold we applied to safety concerns — formal escalation with a credible disengagement position — should perhaps have been applied equally to our C&Q and commissioning concerns. A more structured, formal escalation approach on those issues, rather than repeated advisory notes, may have created greater urgency.
The Additional Budget Request
DTG does not have visibility of the breakdown underpinning the £13m figure — we have not been involved in financial management beyond early estimation and RFP support. On the basis of current programme status, the additional cost appears difficult to justify without further explanation. Our assumption is that there may be substantial capitalisation of site resources contributing to this figure.
More fundamentally, the question is not whether additional funding is required — some level of further investment is now inevitable — but whether the conditions exist to deploy it effectively. Without structural change to governance and resourcing, there is no clear basis for confidence that this investment would deliver a materially different outcome.
Conditions for a Credible Recovery
A credible recovery requires structural change, not additional resource alone.
DTG has detailed knowledge of the project — its history, its current state and the gaps that need to be addressed. We are in a position to support recovery either within an ongoing advisory capacity, or with direct accountability for defined workstreams and scope elements. We would welcome a conversation about what form of engagement would be most effective given the current circumstances.
There is a risk that project difficulties create pressure to revert, partially or fully, to legacy technology as a short-term resolution. DTG's view is that this would be the wrong decision — it would not address the underlying issues, would create significant additional cost and complexity, and would delay the site's modernisation. The correct response is structured recovery of the current programme, not retreat from it.
Suggested Next Steps
Three immediate actions for sponsor consideration.