Instrumentation project delivery process map

What is in this map

18 steps across 5 swimlanes and 5 phases, with 2 decision points.

Swimlanes (who does the work)

Project Manager, Engineering, Procurement, Field Service and Customer

Phases (left to right)

Inquiry & Scoping, Engineering & Design, Procurement & Build, Site Delivery and Documentation, Training & Handover

Why map this process

The very first row exists to sort a multi-instrument solution project — instruments plus a control system and integration — away from a single-instrument request, which this map routes instead to the New Instrument Selection & Specification SOP. That sorting decision matters because the rest of this chart, design approval, factory acceptance testing, on-site commissioning, is genuinely disproportionate for a one-instrument order, and forcing every request through it would make the smaller, more common job slower for no reason.

The factory acceptance test with a customer witness (row 10) is placed deliberately before site installation, not after, because a punch-list item is far cheaper to fix on a shop floor than the same defect found after the system is already on the customer's site. Building that checkpoint into the chart, with its own pass/fail decision and a documented retest loop, is what keeps an installation crew from becoming the place design defects get discovered.

Every step in the map

This is the spreadsheet behind the diagram. The numbers in “Goes to” are row numbers, which is exactly what the editor’s “Line to” column holds — so you can read the flow here and retype any part of it.

The decision points

Every branch in the map, with the label on each outgoing line. These are the questions the process has to be able to answer.

• 6. Customer **approves design and scope?**

  Owned by Project Manager · Engineering & Design

  • Yes → step 8
  • No → step 7

• 11. *FAT* passed?

  Owned by Field Service · Procurement & Build

  • Pass → step 13
  • Fail → step 12

Notes on specific steps

These notes travel with the map. In the editor they live in the Notes column and appear when you open a box.

1. Customer inquiry received

Distinguishes a full solution inquiry, multiple instruments plus a control system and integration, from a single-instrument request, which routes instead to the New Instrument Selection & Specification SOP.

5. Mechanical and electrical design (*P&ID*, loop drawings, panel layout)

P&IDs, loop drawings and panel layout are the actual artifacts customer approval is granted against in the next row, not a verbal description of the solution.

10. *Factory acceptance test* (FAT) with customer witness

Customer travels to the shop or joins remotely to witness the test. A punch-list item found here is far cheaper to fix than the same defect found after the system is installed on site.

16. Train customer operators and maintenance staff

The only step across Insatech's SOPs where the customer's own staff, not just Insatech's technicians, leave knowing how to run and maintain the system themselves.

Making it yours

This chart references two other SOPs as single steps rather than repeating their content: instrument selection at row 4 (New Instrument Selection & Specification SOP) and site installation at row 13 (Instrument Installation & Commissioning SOP). When you adapt this map, keep those as references rather than inlining their steps — a change to how instruments get selected or installed should only need updating in one place, not in every project chart that uses it.

What to watch out for

• Do not skip customer sign-off on the design (row 6) because the technical team is confident in it. The chart routes a rejection straight back into mechanical and electrical design, and that loop exists because P&IDs, loop drawings and panel layout are the actual artifacts approval is granted against — not a verbal description delivered earlier in the project.
• The FAT punch-list loop (row 12) returns to the FAT itself, not to build or design. A failed factory acceptance test means correcting the specific items found and retesting, at the same stage — routing it further back re-does work that was not actually wrong, just work the test has not yet confirmed.
• Do not treat operator training (row 16) as optional documentation busywork. The chart's own note flags it as the only step across this whole set of SOPs where the customer's own staff, not just the service provider's technicians, leave knowing how to run and maintain the system — skipping it undermines the entire point of a project meant to end in independent operation.

Frequently asked questions