The big picture :(

This topic just keeps rolling inside my head. I thought it was better to share with you.

Product Development --> If commercially viable --> The product is scaled up --> Plant is designed --> Constructed --> Commissioned --> Handed Over --> Commercial Production --> Maintenance --> Refurbishing / Expansion --> Sometimes a New Plant @ new location!

All along when this concept must have begun i.e. of building huge processing plants with mammoth capacities, there may not have been so many specialist functions and entities like we have today. Like Client, Licensor, FEED developers, Detail Engineering, Licensed Software Providers, Fabrication, Erection, Commissioning and then PMC (Project Management Companies for huge plants to be delivered in shorter period). Though the roles were not defined then, the functions must have been the same. The tools and management have changed over the years but yet the end goal still remains the same, a profitable venture.

In the past, when the plant was to be built, the client must have hired the "Technical People" to design the plant. However, after finishing the job, there was little left to 'Design' so either they were absorbed (tried to absorb?) in other production or maintenance functions. But then a man is known for his quirks. Some of those "Technical People" thought they were better at designing a plant than running it. So they called it quits and started consulting. This must have been a paradigm shift. Specialists who were good at some specific part.

Now it became an assembly line. A chain of specialists to deliver the final result. Each of these is interlinked with others for inputs and outputs. So the roles were narrowed down based on function. And then if you will check the individual setup, you will find further bifurcation. e.g.
a. Engineering Consultancy: Piping, Civil, Instrumentation, Electrical, Projects, Procurement, Construction etc.
b. Production Unit: Production, Warehouse, Maintenance, ETP and the likes
[/i]So each of us now has a specialized function and tasks (duties) are clearly written.

There must have been leaders with great vision who saw the need to bifurcate, structure these functions and bring in a cohesive order and refine them as and when needed. Each function was (& is) created for a purpose. Throw in the technology angle into this. The technology brought in computers, specialized softwares. And yet some more specialist functions for them to work better and efficiently. For detail intensive field like this, the more details with least of efforts (through software) the better it is i. e. reducing the repetitive and mundane tasks so that people could concentrate on their primary functions.

And shift to today, when we come in the office today:
We look at the tasks and do them as we are told to. Pretty much lost at finishing them than doing them in better manner. And to be truthful, very little personal time to ponder about it. So sometimes frustration keeps in and at times short-sighted decisions are taken. You squirm in your mind but heck no option as you need to maintain the job to keep up lifestyle. So you tow in line. So the moot question remains:
Do we do what we should do? Will we always fail to see the big picture?

Sorry for the rant!