Module 1 · Unit 5 · 10 minutes
This scenario returns to the swimming pool from Unit 3. Consider how an equipment change affects the roles, information and evidence needed across delivery.
Case study
A municipality is delivering a new renewable heating system for a public swimming pool. The project is approaching installation. The preferred heat pump equipment is delayed, and the engineering company proposes an alternative model from another approved supplier. The alternative may affect the design assumptions, electrical requirements, controls, commissioning approach, maintenance information and the evidence required for sign-off.
The project team wants to avoid creating unnecessary interfaces. The client has asked the lead delivery team to coordinate the change and provide a clear recommendation before installation proceeds.
Arrange the five stages in the order in which they must happen. Drag a stage, or use its Move up and Move down buttons. Then check your sequence. You can retry without a pass mark.
In real projects some roles can be combined to reduce unnecessary interfaces. Focus on the sequence of activities rather than the number of people involved.
The alternative equipment is proposed by the engineering company. The client and lead delivery team are notified of the reason for the change and its initial impact on the project.
The engineer, supplier, installer and quality and compliance function review the alternative equipment against the existing design, compliance requirements, installation needs and operational implications. Technical data and certificates must be available at this stage.
The client and responsible technical and compliance roles agree whether the alternative equipment can proceed. A formal recommendation, approval and change record must be produced before any procurement or installation activity begins.
The installer and commissioning team install, test and verify the revised solution. All installation records, test results and commissioning evidence must be captured during this stage.
The client, operator and maintainer receive the completed evidence pack including as-built information, operation and maintenance data, and sign-off evidence confirming the revised solution meets project requirements.
| Stage / timing | Main activity | Key role(s) | Information / evidence needed |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Change identified | Alternative equipment proposed | Client / lead delivery team | Reason for change; initial impact |
| 2. Impact assessed | Check design, compliance, installation and operation | Engineer / supplier / installer / quality and compliance | Technical data; certificates; revised requirements |
| 3. Decision / approval | Agree whether the alternative can proceed | Client + responsible technical/compliance roles | Recommendation; approvals; change record |
| 4. Installation & commissioning | Install, test and verify the revised solution | Installer / commissioning / quality and compliance | Installation and test records |
| 5. Handover | Transfer evidence and operational information | Client / operator / maintainer | As-built information; O&M data; sign-off evidence |
Answers may vary. The model below demonstrates the expected level of thinking: reduce unnecessary interfaces, make dependencies visible, identify constraints early, and ensure evidence is available before sign-off or handover.
Pause the change at the decision point and complete a coordinated impact assessment before installation. The lead delivery team should bring together the engineer, supplier, installer and quality/compliance function to confirm whether the alternative equipment meets the project requirements. The client should then approve the recommendation before procurement or installation proceeds.
Potential risks include compatibility with the existing design, electrical capacity, controls and system interfaces; availability of required certification or technical data; installation or commissioning changes; impact on cost; and whether the operator has sufficient maintenance information. A key delivery risk is allowing one role to proceed on outdated information.
At a high level, evidence should include the approved change or decision record; updated technical information or drawings where relevant; supplier product data and certificates; installation records; commissioning and test results; confirmation of required compliance checks; and updated operation and maintenance information. The exact evidence will depend on project requirements and applicable standards.
For example, the short stakeholder message of the engineering company: “The specified heat pump is delayed, so we are assessing an alternative model before installation proceeds. We are checking its technical compatibility but also the compliance evidence, installation requirements and maintenance implications need to be checked. We will confirm the recommendation and approval before the team relies on the revised equipment information”.