Most EPC projects that struggle do so after technically correct engineering work has already been delivered. The drawings meet code. The models are detailed. The calculations are sound. And yet the project still faces late changes, rework, schedule pressure, and difficult commissioning.
As Cooper Cleveland, Vice President of Engineering & Technical Services and one of McGough’s industrial leaders often notes this disconnect isn’t about engineering quality. It’s about whether engineering outputs are fully aligned with how the project will actually be built, started up, and operated.
Well-engineered projects require rigorous technical work, and most of the engineering on industrial projects is very strong. The challenges we see are rarely a failure of talent. They usually come from unclear scoping, an incomplete design basis, or compressed schedules that create coordination and communication gaps.”
That distinction is important because it correctly identifies the issue at hand. This is not a critique of engineering talent or effort. It’s a recognition that even excellent engineering can struggle when project expectations and downstream needs aren’t aligned early and maintained throughout execution.
The challenge lives in the system, not the discipline
Engineering teams on EPC projects are solving highly complex technical problems under real constraints. Where EPC execution tends to get into trouble is when engineering, project development, and construction execution are working toward different definitions of what operational readiness means.
Engineering may be progressing against one set of basic project engineering assumptions. Construction may be planning work based on another. Owners may be expecting a third outcome entirely — often without realizing those expectations were never clearly defined or connected at the outset.
When those definitions drift apart, familiar problems begin to surface. Engineering that was once considered complete requires revisions. Procurement decisions have to be revisited. Field teams encounter unclear interfaces or missing information. Commissioning slows as teams work to reconcile documentation with real-world conditions.
When expectations between engineering, construction, and operations aren’t aligned early, the same issues tend to repeat themselves. That misalignment shows up as schedule pressure, constructability challenges, cost impacts, and operability problems that create tension across the project team.”
These challenges aren’t caused by any single group. They’re the result of misalignment in how projects are set up and governed.
Why alignment has to start with engineering
Because engineering sits at the front end of the project development lifecycle, early decisions have long-lasting impact. Choices made during concept and front-end engineering shape procurement strategies, construction sequencing, and ultimately how the facility is operated and maintained.
Cooper describes alignment as designing with the full project operational lifecycle in mind, not just what works on paper, but what works in the field and over the life of the asset.
Engineering decisions need to be made by working backward from operations through commissioning, construction, and procurement. Capturing the right level of detail early helps teams understand cause and effect, while managing how that information is delivered prevents teams from being overwhelmed or stalled by unnecessary detail.”
At McGough, this has led to a simple but meaningful shift in mindset. Engineering is treated not as a standalone phase, but as an enabler for construction execution, project controls, and owner outcomes. The goal isn’t to add burden or slow progress, but to make sure the engineering effort is focused where it creates the most value.
From technically correct to operationally usable
When engineering expectations are clearly aligned, the benefits show up quickly across the project. Construction teams gain confidence in the information they’re using to plan and sequence work. Procurement decisions are made with greater stability. Project controls teams can measure real progress instead of inferred progress. Owners receive information that supports operations, not just closeout requirements.
Aligned engineering improves predictability by reducing rework and team friction. When chaos is reduced, teams retain the energy and focus needed to execute and innovate.”
Perhaps most importantly, alignment reduces late-stage churn. Changes still happen. They always do on complex projects. But they’re easier to manage when everyone is working from the same baseline and understands the downstream implications.
Turning experience into a repeatable approach
These lessons aren’t unique to any single project or market. Industry research and public project case studies consistently show that misalignment, not lack of expertise, is a primary driver of cost growth and schedule overruns on large capital projects.
To address this, McGough has translated hard-earned experience into a clear, repeatable framework for working with engineers. The focus is on defining expectations early, maintaining consistency through execution, and ensuring engineering outputs remain usable for the teams who depend on them.
The intent is straightforward: help engineering teams succeed while improving predictability and reducing risk for the entire project.
Learn more
For readers interested in how this approach works in practice, McGough has published a white paper outlining its Engineering Partner Requirements and how they support construction execution, project controls, and owner needs.
👉 The McGough Engineering Partner Requirements Approach
At its core, the message is simple. When engineering, construction, and operations are aligned around shared expectations from the start, projects don’t just look good on paper. They perform better in the field.
