Navigating Fusion’s Complex Transition to Operation

Large capital projects often struggle with documentation that becomes siloed, with different contractors delivering pieces of the puzzle. Implementing a fully integrated electronic document management platform such as FACILEX® can provide a single coherent framework for all this data. A comprehensive historical and operational record for the entire lifecycle of the facility is invaluable for meeting commissioning targets and operational process safety.

In the world of capital project delivery, few endeavors rival the complexity and ambition of building a prototype fusion research facility. These are not commercial power plants with established regulatory pathways and decades of precedent—they are first-of-a-kind scientific machines, designed at the frontiers of plasma physics and systems engineering.

And yet, just like any large capital asset, these facilities must become operable, reliable, and maintainable. That transition—from a billion-dollar research experiment to a functioning facility—is where project engineers, managers, and asset reliability leaders face some of the most underappreciated challenges in modern engineering.

A Fusion Prototype Is a Construction Project Like No Other

Fusion research facilities bring together:

  • Cryogenic systems operating at 4 Kelvin
  • High-field superconducting magnets under megampere currents
  • Fueling systems handling hydrogen isotopes
  • Power electronics capable of delivering gigawatt-scale pulses
  • Complex vacuum, cooling, radiation shielding, and interlock networks

Each of these systems may be delivered by different prime contractors, sometimes across borders, each working within their own toolsets, documentation standards, and schedules. For the owner, the complexity is not just technical—it’s organizational.

From the outset, the project must plan for a cohesive, integrated handover—not just of hardware, but of operational knowledge.

The Documentation Dilemma: From Drawings to Operational Readiness

Every subsystem built by a contractor eventually generates a flood of:

  • As-built drawings and P&IDs
  • Welding and inspection records
  • Material test certificates
  • Control system configurations
  • Software logic documentation
  • Safety and commissioning reports

But these documents do not automatically knit together into a usable facility model. Without a structured approach, handover becomes fragmented and delayed—a major risk to commissioning timelines and safety assurance.

For project engineers, the challenge is to embed document control and data standardization practices early in the project, using common engineering tags, metadata structures, and file hierarchies that support system integration and later digital twin development.

Commissioning Is Not a Phase—It’s a Strategy

Commissioning a fusion facility cannot be bolted on at the end; it must be integrated throughout the project lifecycle. For project managers and reliability engineers, this means:

  • Developing the commissioning and start-up plan in parallel with the design
  • Defining handover milestones by subsystem, not solely at mechanical completion
  • Creating a centralized asset information system to accumulate records as systems are built
  • Applying Management of Change (MOC) rigorously—even during construction—supported by management of change software that ensures changes are documented, reviewed, and traceable in real time

Remember: you can’t operate what you don’t understand—and you can’t maintain what you can’t trace.

Reliability Starts Before First Plasma

Asset reliability is often considered a post-commissioning issue. In fusion, that’s a mistake. These facilities have:

  • Long lead-time components
  • Radiation-sensitive electronics
  • Safety-critical interlocks
  • Helium, hydrogen, and tritium systems under strict tolerances

If asset strategies (e.g., spares, condition monitoring, preventive maintenance) are not developed before operations begin, early failures could set the program back months or years.

Reliability engineers should collaborate with project teams to:

  • Build out Failure Mode and Effects Analyses (FMEAs) during design
  • Define critical spares and preventive maintenance routines early
  • Ensure all equipment is delivered with OEM-recommended operating envelopes
  • Work toward a lifecycle asset model that spans design, construction, and operation

Lessons from Other Complex Facilities

Fusion may be a new frontier, but the challenges of complex, multi-vendor, high-integrity systems have been faced before—in industries like:

  • Oil & gas (offshore platforms, LNG trains)
  • Pharmaceuticals (validated GMP facilities)
  • Nuclear (power and research reactors)
  • Aerospace ground support infrastructure

These industries have learned (often painfully) that early integration, centralized data management, and commissioning discipline are not optional—they are essential.

Fusion projects can draw from these lessons by:

  • Creating an Integrated Project Team that includes ops, maintenance, and safety experts from Day 1
  • Requiring digital deliverables that support downstream use
  • Implementing a unified asset register with traceability to construction and commissioning records

The Real Fusion Challenge: Integration, Not Just Innovation

For engineers, managers, and reliability leaders, fusion is not just a physics challenge—it’s an execution challenge.

Yes, the science is groundbreaking. But what will ultimately determine success is whether we can build, document, commission, and operate these facilities as a unified system, not just as a sum of parts.

If we succeed, the energy equation may finally tip in our favor—not just in megawatts, but in megaproject mastery.

Share:

More Posts

Workflow Is Not a Strategy: Why Management of Change Must Be Designed as a Lifecycle

Over the past two decades, many organizations have invested heavily in digital Management of Change (MOC) systems. Most of these systems share a common design philosophy: they treat MOC as a workflow—a predefined sequence of steps that moves a change request from initiation to approval and closure.
This approach is appealing to IT teams because workflows are easy to automate, measure, and control. However, it fundamentally misrepresents the nature of Management of Change.
MOC is not a linear process. It is a lifecycle-based business process that must adapt to technical complexity, organizational context, and evolving risk. When organizations attempt to force MOC into rigid workflow structures, they inadvertently create systems that are efficient in appearance but ineffective in practice.
To support modern process safety, MOC must be architected as a configurable lifecycle embedded within an integrated risk-based process safety framework—not as a static workflow engine.

Why Management of Change Must Be Rebuilt for Modern Industry

Management of Change (MOC) is one of the most critical controls in process safety management, yet it remains one of the most misunderstood. While regulatory frameworks such as OSHA 1910.119 define what must be addressed, they do not define how organizations should design, execute, and govern change in complex industrial environments.
Most MOC systems in use today were not designed for the realities of modern operations. They evolved from paper-based processes and early digital document management tools that prioritized compliance over risk intelligence, traceability, and integration.
To meet the demands of contemporary industrial operations, MOC must be fundamentally rethought—not as a form, a workflow, or a compliance exercise, but as a lifecycle-based business process embedded within an integrated process safety ecosystem.

AI Governance Starts Long Before AI Is Introduced

Artificial intelligence governance is often discussed as a new discipline—one that emerges only after AI tools are deployed. Policies are drafted, oversight committees formed, and ethical frameworks debated. While these steps are important, they miss a critical reality:
AI governance does not begin with AI. It begins with how information has been governed for years.

Automation Before AI: Lessons from Asset-Intensive Industries

As artificial intelligence gains momentum across industries, many organizations are eager to move directly from manual work to AI-enabled solutions. In asset-intensive and regulated environments, this leap often ends in frustration. The issue is not ambition, it is sequencing.
Organizations that succeed with AI consistently share one characteristic: they automated their information and business processes before attempting to make them intelligent. Those that skip this step discover that AI struggles to add value on top of fragmented, inconsistent, or poorly defined processes.