The seven stages of chemical technology from concept to industrialization (Issue 2/100) -- Preface

Thread Content

This post was last edited by xiouxingzhe on 2026-6-23 15:20. Seven stages of chemical technology from idea to industrialization (Part 2/100). Dear friends: Hello everyone! In the previous issue, we introduced the origin of the “seven-stage model” as well as an overview of its seven stages. In this episode today, building on the topic from the last one, I’d like to discuss three questions with you: What exactly makes chemical technology innovation special? Why should I spend time building this “seven-stage model”? Also, what are the approximate investments and risks associated with each of the seven stages? I. Three particularities of chemical technology innovation: Having worked on chemical projects for 21 years, I believe that chemical technology innovation differs fundamentally from innovation in the software industry and manufacturing sector. The first specificity: the verification cycle is extremely long, and the cost of trial and error is very high. In the software industry, once a bug is fixed and the update is deployed, users can use the new version the very next day. If there’s a mistake, it can be corrected or hot-fixed, and the cost is essentially just the programmer’s time. In the manufacturing industry, prototypes can be used for trial production, and pilot runs can help refine the manufacturing processes; if errors occur, the molds can be modified and the production lines adjusted, keeping costs relatively under control. Chemical engineering is not like that. You designed a process on paper, drew up the PFD, calculated the material balance, and selected the equipment models. But it is only after the installation is completed, feeding begins, and the product flows out of the sampling port that you can truly verify whether this design is correct or not. This validation period could be three years, five years, or even longer. If there’s a mistake, the cost isn’t just a few lines of code to be changed or a mold to be repaired; it could mean dismantling a section of piping, replacing a reactor, or even having to rebuild the entire facility from scratch. I have seen this happen more than once on site: a seemingly minor oversight during the design phase turns out to cause massive problems during construction, with the cost of redoing work increasing by dozens or even hundreds of times. A decision in engineering, once it is turned into concrete and steel, comes at an exponentially higher cost if attempts are made to change it. The second specificity: high investment, long cycle, and systemic risks. A medium-scale fine chemical production facility requires investments of tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of yuan, from the conceptual stage to its commissioning. Moreover, with this amount of money invested, there will be no return to be seen until the facility starts operating. From the first technical idea to the stable operation of the device and achieving the required performance standards, three to five years is a normal timeframe. A major mistake at any stage along the way can lead to a delay of over a year for the project, or even its complete cancellation. Risk is not just an issue related to a single stage. Wrong market assessment, inappropriate choice of technical approach, failure to understand the amplification effects, wrong selection of equipment materials, poor control over construction quality, and flaws in safety interlocks – any one of these issues can lead to the failure of the entire project. Moreover, these problems are often not isolated; they influence each other and amplify in a cascading manner. From my own experience, a lapse in one step can be amplified exponentially in subsequent steps. A side reaction that was not given attention during the pilot stage might be considered merely a \"minor waste\" during the pilot-scale testing; but in an industrial setup, it becomes a material that needs to be separated separately, requiring the installation of entire distillation and recovery systems. This increases both investment costs and energy consumption, ultimately undermining the economic viability of the entire project. This chain of risk transmission, which spreads from a single detail to the overall situation, is perhaps the most hidden and deadly aspect of chemical projects. Third specificity: once successful, it creates value for decades. On the other hand, the returns from innovation in chemical technology are also tangible. A successful chemical process plant can operate stably for twenty years, thirty years, or even longer. For a plant with an annual production capacity of tens of thousands of tons, if its process technology offers competitive advantages – such as lower energy consumption, higher yields, less waste generation, and greater safety – these advantages will continue to translate into value, creating benefits every day. A set of devices that save 20% more energy than others can save millions in steam costs over the course of a year. Ten years in operation means tens of millions. It is not a one-time technology transfer fee, nor is it profit earned only when the market is good in a particular year; rather, it is an ongoing benefit as long as the facility is operating. Operating day after day, products are produced batch by batch, and profits accumulate little by little. These three particularities combined make me feel that those who have walked this path have an obligation to leave behind markers. II. Why is a seven-stage model needed? Having worked in this industry for 21 years, from a junior technician to a project manager, I have been involved in 19 key projects. Some were successful, some failed, some were completed, and some were halted for various reasons. Looking back on these experiences, I personally believe that there are several notable phenomena in the transition of chemical engineering technology from an idea to industrial application. First, for those new to the field, there is a lack of a clear roadmap. When entering this field, it seems there wasn’t a single book or set of courses that explained the various steps involved in transforming an idea related to chemical engineering – from the moment it first arises in one’s mind – into a factory that operates steadily. Many people are figuring things out on their own experience. I had this feeling when I first started in the industry. When I do design work, I don’t know how the blueprints are used by the construction team ； When I was working in construction management, I realized that I had no chance to participate in many of the decisions made during the design phase. It took me a long time to gradually fill in the gaps in my understanding caused by this disconnect between different stages. But many people may not have this opportunity. Second, experience tends to follow individuals and is not easily passed on to the team. The technical capabilities of many companies depend on a key individual. When this person leaves, that skill is lost. The same error keeps recurring in different projects. What a skilled engineer accumulates over ten years of work, his successor may have to start from scratch once he leaves. It’s not that the successors lack ability; rather, the lessons learned by the predecessors have not been turned into shared knowledge for the team. Third, it is not easy to draw on experiences from different projects. Each project seems to be unique. The experience from Project A seems to not be applicable to Project B. ““This project is special” – this phrase may have covered up a lot of experience that should have been accumulated but wasn’t. I have worked in the chlor-alkali industry, in new materials, in the fluorine chemicals sector, and in fine chemicals. At first, I also thought that each project was different. But after doing it many times, I found that there are many common elements at the underlying level. It seems that no matter what product is being developed, it has to go through several key steps: deciding whether it’s worth pursuing, conducting laboratory tests to see if it’s feasible, testing it on a larger scale, creating detailed technical documents that are easy to understand, drawing up blueprints so that construction teams can carry out the work, ensuring that the facility can be built and operated safely, and finally ensuring that its performance improves over time as it is in use. This logic might be similar. But due to the lack of a framework, sometimes each project feels like starting from scratch. III. Investments and Risks in the Seven Stages Before delving into each stage, I’d like to discuss what the investments and risks associated with each of these seven stages are. This may help to grasp the pace of technology industrialization as a whole. Let’s talk about the investment first. The inspiration-driven first phase costs almost nothing. It’s your time, reading, thinking, a pen and a piece of paper. In the second phase of innovation incubation, investment increases slightly, but mainly in terms of labor costs. Market research, literature review, desk studies, and possibly some rough material balance calculations. Substantial investment has begun in the technical research and development of the third phase. Laboratory equipment, reagents, analysis and testing, as well as the setup and operation of pilot-scale devices, have all seen an improvement. Phase 4: Technical finalization and preparation of the process package. It mainly involves labor input, but process simulation software and experienced process engineers are also required, resulting in increasing costs. The real big money is in stages five and six. In the fifth phase of project conversion, costs related to design, labor hours for various specialties, as well as the preparation and review of specialized documents, all see a significant increase. In the sixth phase of project implementation, equipment procurement, civil construction and installation, construction management, and commissioning take place – this represents the peak of investment. A medium-scale fine chemical production facility – the cost incurred at this stage can account for 70 to 80 percent of the total investment. In the seventh phase of operational optimization, investment decreases significantly, mainly due to normal production and operation costs, along with some expenses related to technological upgrades. The earlier the stage, the less money is spent ； The later the stage, the more money it costs. This means that the further forward one goes, the lower the cost of changing a decision ； The further forward, the higher the cost of changing a decision. Now, let’s talk about risks. The risk curve is somewhat different from the investment curve. In my experience, the peaks of risk occur at two points. The first peak is at the end of the second phase—the Go/No-Go decision point. If the reasoning at this stage is insufficient and a major direction is misjudged, a large amount of resources will be invested in a direction that is not viable. But if the reasoning is solid and the unfounded options are decisively ruled out, the risks will decrease significantly. Therefore, the second phase is likely a very important risk control point in the entire seven-phase model. The second peak is in the sixth phase – construction and operation. This is the period with the highest risk concentration throughout the entire life cycle. Hot work during construction, large-scale lifting operations, work at heights, and concurrent tasks, along with the first batch of chemicals being fed into the reactor – all the results of the previous design, construction, and preparation efforts must be put to the test at the moment when the materials enter the reactor. Only after successful driving do the risks gradually stabilize. If we look at the investment curve and the risk curve together, there is one point worth noting: the risk is relatively high in the second phase, but the investment is still low. Here, a small amount of money is spent to prevent a major disaster. Phase 6 requires the highest investment and carries the highest risks as well. The money spent here is \"money that must be spent,\" but the risks can be minimized through thorough preparation in advance. One of the costly mistakes I’ve made is when saving a little money in the initial planning phase results in high expenses due to rework later on. I’ve seen projects where, without thorough scientific validation in the second phase, they rushed into the laboratory; after years of research and significant investment, it was discovered that there was an issue with the direction itself. I’ve also seen projects where the drawing reviews in phase five were merely a formality; once work started in phase six, a bunch of collision and interference issues were discovered, resulting in rework costs that easily exceeded one million. Of course, these are just my personal observations and experiences; they may not be correct. I’m writing them down for everyone’s reference. IV. Attitude toward this series: After saying so much, I would like to add a few more words regarding my attitude toward this series. Every stage mentioned in this series is one that I have gone through myself. Every case cited is a project I have personally experienced. Every lesson learned is one I acquired at the cost of time and money. There’s a phrase I keep reminding myself of: if it hasn’t been verified, it’s better not to write it. What is written down should, as much as possible, stem from actual practice. This series will not provide you with a perfect theoretical edifice. It provides a not-perfect but perhaps usable framework, some proven methods for carrying out tasks, and many tips to avoid pitfalls learned from past mistakes. It is not the “standard answer” for the industrialization of chemical engineering technologies—in fact, there may be no standard answer in this field. It is simply a summary of my 21 years of practical experience, a sincere sharing. Furthermore, my understanding is certainly limited. Among Haiyou’s members, there are those in the petrochemical industry, those in the fine chemicals sector, those involved in pharmaceutical intermediates, and those working in new materials – each group brings valuable experience. This series is not \"I speak and you listen,\" but \"I speak first, and you add to it.\" Please offer more criticism and additional suggestions in your replies; together we can refine this framework to make it even better. Finally, let me end this issue with a sentence meant for all those who are working hard to advance the industrialization of chemical technology: Seek inspiration keenly in the chaos of the unknown, and carry out actions decisively within the clarity of order. The industrialization of technology means completing seven steps between these two sentences. Preview for the next issue: Issue 3 – The nature of inspiration: It isn’t something that comes waiting for you; it’s created through collision. What exactly is inspiration? My own experience is that inspiration doesn’t come from sitting in an office; it arises in a prepared mind, from the collision between existing knowledge and unexpected outcomes. In the next issue, we will first clarify this issue, and then introduce the five sources of creative inspiration. Table of Contents Link: The Seven-Stage Model for the Development of Chemical Technology from Idea to Industrialization (Issue 100) – Table of Contents (updated in real time). Appendix: Overview Table of Updates for the “Seven-Stage Model for the Development of Chemical Technology from Idea to Industrialization”. Content by Issue: Issue 1 – An overview of the origins and overall structure of the seven-stage model; Issue 2 – Introduction: The uniqueness of innovations in chemical technology, why a seven-stage model is needed, and an overview of investments and risks at each stage; Issues 3–10 – Stage 1: Inspiration-driven development: The nature of inspiration, five sources of inspiration, tools for generating ideas, and case studies; Issues 11–22 – Stage 2: Incubation of innovation: Scientific validation, business case development, risk assessment, Go/No-Go decisions, and case studies; Issues 23–36 – Stage 3: Technical research and development: Concept verification, condition optimization, exploration of separation methods, pilot-scale testing, scale-up to pilot plant level, data collection, and case studies; Issues 37–62 – Stage 4: Finalization of the technology: Sixteen key tasks related to process development, review of PFD/PID designs, design of equipment and instruments, and case studies; Issues 63–80 – Stage 5: Engineering transition: Feasibility studies, scheme design, basic design, detailed design, specialized reports, design reviews, and case studies; Issues 81–92 – Stage 6: Project implementation: Procurement and manufacturing supervision, civil construction and installation, pressure testing and purging, commissioning of the plant, safety reviews, and case studies; Issues 93–98 – Stage 7: Operational optimization: Completion acceptance, achievement of production targets, energy consumption comparison, improvement of bottlenecks, MOC procedures, and case studies; Issues 99–100 – Summary: Practical applications of the model, review of the entire series, and Q&A session