Appendix G.

Control Objectives Analysis

(Presented at the 1977 Computer Conference by Kirby L. Hadley,

Chevron Research Company)

Summary
Control engineers are having more and more influence on how refinery processes
are operated by designing, building, and installing advanced control systems
utilizing digital computers. New control systems will be installed which improve
plant profitability providing that (1) the process control engineer clearly understands the problem to be solved and (2) operating management understands what to
expect from the new control system.
In the last two years, Chevron has developed a formal technique for insuring that
this communication occurs without misunderstanding. We call it Control Objectives Analysis.
The thesis behind Control Objectives Analysis is that it is always possible for a
group representing operations, process engineering, and control engineering to
define and agree on a list of concise, precise, true-all-of-the-time statements
which define the operating objectives of a process. These objectives are met by
manipulating the valves of the plant. This list of Control Objectives serves as the
basis for the control system design, serves as a yardstick for measuring the success
of a new control project, and provides a consistent basis for monitoring ongoing
performance.
Contents

Page

G1.0 The Game: The Analysis

G-3

G2.0 The Goal: The Control Objectives

G-3

G3.0 Rules of the Game

G-3

G4.0 Role of the Moderator

G-4

G5.0 Opening the Game

G-4

G5.1 Opening Step #1: The Diagram

G5.2 Opening Step #2: The Overall Objective
G5.3 Opening Step #3: Count the Valves
G6.0 The Game of Defining Objectives

G-5

G7.0 Closing the Game

G-5

G7.1 Closing Step #1: Categorizing the Objectives

G7.2 Closing Step #2: Back to the Overall Objective

Chevron Corporation

G-1

June 1989

Appendix G

June 1989

Instrumentation and Control Manual

G8.0 Conclusions

G-6

G9.0 Credits

G-6

G-2

Chevron Corporation

Instrumentation and Control Manual

G1.0

Appendix G

The Game: The Analysis

A Control Objectives Analysis session is treated as a game. A minimum of four
players is required: a moderator, a control engineer, a process engineer, and an operations representative. The game is won when the group reaches the Goal: defining a
list of carefully stated Control Objectives equal in number to the number of
control valves in the process area under consideration.
In practice, weve made three observations after performing this Game many times:

G2.0

1.

The game is almost always won. Participants come away with a major feeling
of accomplishment. There are no individual losers.

2.

It takes three or four hours to analyze a portion of a process containing about

15 valves.

3.

The analysis is an intense exercise in group dynamics. Its best to limit sessions
to half a day.

The Goal: The Control Objectives

A properly defined Control Objective is a concise, precise, true-all-of-the-time
sentence which defines one of the reasons valves are moved in a process. The three
characteristics of properly defined objectives are important and need to be understood by the Players.
Concise means that the objectives statement should be as short as possible yet still
convey all of the necessary information. Excessive words may indicate a lack of
understanding of the true objective.
Precise means that the statement must actually say what the Players are thinking so
clearly that everyone has the same understanding of what the objective means.
True-all-of-the-time forces the Players to consider all of the conditions which may
arise in the plant. This is particularly important if an advanced control system operating all-of-the-time is to be designed based upon the Control Objectives.
As noted previously, the Game is over, the Goal is reached, when the number of
agreed upon Control Objectives statements is exactly equal to the number of
valves in the process area being considered.

G3.0

Rules of the Game

Three rules have evolved which help keep discussions directed toward the Goal:

Chevron Corporation

1.

The existing control system is not discussed. It is best if a process diagram is

available which shows only valves, no control loops. If the available diagram
shows loops, Players should be instructed to totally ignore them.

2.

A new control system is not designed. This happens most frequently when a
Player suggests an objective such as adjust the reflux to hold the tower temper-

G-3

June 1989

Appendix G

Instrumentation and Control Manual

ature at some target. Linking the reflux and the temperature together in a
single statement implies a loop configuration.
3.

Computers are not mentioned. The Analysis session should not become a
forum for the discussion of computer control.

The Moderator of a Game should carefully review these Rules with the Players
before the Game begins. We have noted that Players will begin correcting themselves and each other when a Rule is broken.

G4.0

Role of the Moderator

An important part of this Game concept is that the Moderator is not dictating to the
Players what the objectives of the process are. In fact, we have found it is not necessary for the Moderator to have any knowledge of the type of process under consideration.
There are two requirements for a good Moderator:
1.

The Moderator must be able to determine when an objective meets the concise,
precise, true-all-of-the-time criteria.

2.

The Moderator must develop the skill to extract from the Players their knowledge of the process.

We have found that the Moderator works best at a blackboard with chalk and eraser.
Each objective proposed by a Player undergoes many revisions before it meets all
three requirements, is consistent with all of the other objectives, and is approved by
all Players.

G5.0

Opening the Game

If the Players are familiar with the Game, the Moderator can move the group
directly into the steps outlined below. If any Players are new, the Moderator should
explain the Games Rules and describe the three criteria of a good objective.

G5.1

Opening Step #1: The Diagram

A process diagram should be available, simplified as much as possible, which
clearly shows the control valves under consideration. The Moderator should ask the
Players to explain to him what the process does.

G5.2

Opening Step #2: The Overall Objective

The Moderator asks the Players to define an overall objective for this portion of the
process. A long rambling paragraph generally evolves which the Moderator writes
on the board uncritically. This opening step is primarily intended to break the ice
and allow everyone to talk. When the group agrees on the wording for the overall
objective, it is copied down and set aside to be used again in the final Closing Step.

June 1989

G-4

Chevron Corporation

Instrumentation and Control Manual

G5.3

Appendix G

Opening Step #3: Count the Valves

The Moderator returns to the diagram and with the group counts the number of
control valves. The Moderator then announces the goal: the definition of that same
number of concise, precise, true-all-of-the-time Control Objectives.

G6.0

The Game of Defining Objectives

Most of the time of an Analysis is spent defining and polishing the individual
Control Objectives statements. The persons trained as Moderators at Chevron have
developed individual styles. We have found, however, a more or less standard set of
questions Moderators use to stimulate thinking. Here are some of them:
Is this proposed Objective precise? Is it really true?
For example, an Objective which says Minimize fuel consumption can best be
met by shutting the plant down.
Is the proposed Objective met in practice in the plant todayor are there important constraints or overriding considerations which mean we sometimes relax the
Objective?
A positive answer here has strong implications to the control engineers design of
an advanced control system.
Do management signals change so that the plant shifts from one set of objectives
to another?
Can the existing valves achieve the objectives?
Are there any valves which are normally totally open or totally closed and thus
should not be included in the count of valves?
Does the list of objectives provide enough information to specify the way in which
valves should be moved and positioned?
Is some valve on the diagram not covered by one or more of the objective statements?
Can we measure the criteria defined by the objectives with measuring devices
currently installed? New devices?
The questions above are not asked in any particular order. The skill of the Moderator is in directing the groups thinking toward the completed goal by selecting the
appropriate approach at each point through the discussion.

G7.0

Closing the Game

When the number of agreed upon Control Objectives matches the number of valves,
the Game is over.
There are two final steps the Moderator may lead the group through to make the
results more meaningful to the participants.

Chevron Corporation

G-5

June 1989

Appendix G

G7.1

Instrumentation and Control Manual

Closing Step #1: Categorizing the Objectives

It has been discovered that all single objectives statements fall into one of three categories:
Type I:

Hold material balance, heat balances

Type II:

Hold operations at management-set targets

Type III:

Balance one objective against another; optimize; minimize or maximize

The group should reorganize the list of objectives and force each into one of these
categories.
Here are the types of understanding which can come out of this exercise:

G7.2

1.

Those objectives which we have no control over which are fixed by the requirements of the process are identified. These are the Type I objectives.

2.

The targets management should be issuing are identified by the Type II statements. This may lead to a re-evaluation of the methods of target setting.

3.

The Type III objectives are those which point toward engineering and
economic studies.

Closing Step #2: Back to the Overall Objective

As a wrapup, we have found it useful to return to that Overall Objective paragraph
generated at the beginning of the exercise and compare the detailed Control Objectives with that beginning statement. This strongly contrasts preconceived ideas with
the finished Control Objectives List. Participants frequently choose to rewrite the
Overall Objective.

G8.0

Conclusions
This simple technique has worked successfully for Chevron again and again.
The Company is aggressively moving to implement advanced control projects
based on this concept.
Additionally, operating management has recognized a tool to clarify thinking and
motivate operators in plants not scheduled yet for computer control projects.
Control engineering as a discipline has increased its influence on company operations.

G9.0

Credits
The Control Objectives Analysis technique evolved through the efforts of a
number of individuals. Jim Bronfenbrenner and John Westmoreland of Chevron
Research, in particular, developed many of the techniques described in this paper.

June 1989

G-6

Chevron Corporation