Stop Forcing Your Best Experts to Do Two Jobs: The Case for Project Based Engineering

How Project Based Engineering Solves Capacity Constraints Without Adding Permanent Headcount

The engineering and construction industry is facing a capacity crisis. According to a recent KPMG survey, two of the top three expertise gaps manufacturers struggle to fill are advanced manufacturing and production skills (44%) and engineering and technical design expertise (36%). For companies running complex capital and test projects, that shortage directly impacts engineering capacity planning in two ways.

The first is bandwidth. Most manufacturers have capable technical experts internally: people who know their product, their test requirements, and their business priorities deeply. The problem is that without proper engineering capacity planning, those same people are routinely asked to take on work in addition to their day job, layering project management on top of their core role, leaving no one fully focused on either task.

The second is expertise in test system integration. Knowing how your test systems need to perform is not the same as knowing how mechanical, electrical, controls, and facility systems need to be coordinated to get there. Complex test system integration requires cross-disciplinary knowledge and the experience to apply it from the front end of a project, capabilities that are among the scarcest in the market.

Delayed Decisions are the Most Expensive Decisions

As engineering and construction capacity tightens and timelines expand, asking internal experts to take on that integration work on top of their core role generally pushes integration decisions too late in the process, where choices are fewer and the cost of changing course higher. Complex test facilities don’t fail at commissioning because someone made a bad decision. They fail because the decisions weren’t made early enough.

With no one responsible for test system integration, building design often begins before testing requirements are fully defined. It’s common to see a building designed to accommodate large test articles, only to learn much later that the test cell must also support smaller ones as well. By the time that full power range and turndown profile are understood, exhaust, cooling, power, and controls often need to be rethought, with cascading effects across drawings, procurement, and schedule.

Long-lead equipment can worsen the consequences. Load banks, specialized dynamometers, and other critical equipment require early procurement decisions and have significant design implications for the rest of the facility. Without defined criteria at the front end, owners face a choice: commit to equipment based on incomplete information or slip the schedule waiting for clarity.

Pushing Construction Management on to Technical Experts Shortchanges Both Needs

When a manufacturer takes on construction management themselves without strategic engineering capacity planning, they’re typically coordinating multiple contractors and vendors, pulling them away from their top priority of maintaining production levels. The internal technical experts, the ones with the product knowledge, the test requirements, and business priorities, get pulled away from their core responsibilities to fill roles they’re not trained to do. Integrating dedicated project based engineering resources prevents this drift, avoiding predictable scope gaps, miscommunications, change orders, and a project that runs on reaction rather than plan.

The Case for a Project-Based Extension of Staff

When the gaps are bandwidth and integration, rather than core product expertise, there’s no reason for costly searches that increase permanent headcount. The more flexible solution is bringing in project based engineering as an extension of staff. Relying on project based engineering provides a cross‑disciplinary team—mechanical, electrical, controls, construction management—that integrates with the owner’s organization, works from the owner’s goals, and carries accountability for outcomes.

That’s the model behind ACS’ Ntandem™ systems integration services. The Ntandem approach treats the facility, test systems, and construction management as one integrated scope under a single accountable team, brought in early enough to shape design criteria and long‑lead decisions. Within that framework, ACS can contribute technical expertise into a client‑led process or take on full management and accountability from front end planning through final acceptance.