Across this series, we have explored how ramp-up success is not determined at start-up; rather it is shaped much earlier, through the decisions made during project development. When projects underperform during ramp-up, the question that follows is often the same: Who owns this outcome? And more importantly, were they in the room when the decisions that caused it were made?
The disconnect between decisions and outcomes
Ramp-ups are where reality becomes visible. Production capacity targets are tested. Process assumptions are validated (for better or for worse). Operational constraints emerge. When ramp-up performance falls short, the causes are often traced back to incomplete test work, aggressive schedules, design trade-offs made under pressure (and without good judgment), and misalignment between project and operational objectives.
These decisions are rarely made during commissioning. They are made much earlier, often during concept and feasibility studies, front-end engineering and design (especially if fast-tracked), or early project approvals. Typically, by the time ramp-up begins, the teams responsible for those early decisions are no longer involved. Project teams disband. Contractors demobilize. Leadership changes. What remains is a new team tasked with delivering performance against assumptions they did not create.
The accountability gap
This change in teams creates a structural issue. Responsibility for outcomes is assigned at the point of delivery. Authority to shape those outcomes exists much earlier. The result is an accountability gap.
When ramp-up underperforms:
Root cause analyses identify technical and organizational issues
Lessons learned are documented
Recommendations are made for future projects
But ownership remains unclear.
No single function or individual carries accountability across the full lifecycle: from early assumptions through project execution and into operational performance. Without this continuity, projects become isolated events rather than cumulative learning opportunities.
The hidden consequence: Reputational impact
Beyond cost and schedule, this gap has a direct and compounding impact on reputation. Ramp-up underperformance is one of the most visible and scrutinized phases of a project lifecycle.
Ramp-up performance is where:
Investors test confidence in forecasts
Boards evaluate capital discipline
Stakeholders assess delivery credibility
When targets are missed, the narrative rarely distinguishes between phases.
Repeated underperformance can lead to:
Erosion of investor confidence
Reduced access to capital or a higher cost of financing
Increased scrutiny from regulators and stakeholders
Loss of credibility with partners and supply chain
Importantly, reputation is shaped not only by outcomes, but by perceived control over those outcomes. An organization that consistently identifies issues but cannot demonstrate ownership or accountability risks being seen as reactive rather than disciplined. Over time, this can shift how future projects are viewed and approved.
Why client maturity matters
The ability to maintain accountability across the lifecycle is closely tied to client maturity.
In newer, less mature organizations:
Projects are treated as discrete events rather than part of a continuous portfolio
Accountability resets at each phase
Governance focuses on stage-gate approvals rather than outcome ownership
Lessons learned may be documented, but not systematically shared and known
In more mature organizations:
There is a clear line of sight from early assumptions to operational performance
Accountability is defined at the outcome level, not only at the phase level
Governance structures reinforce continuity across project phases
Experienced individuals remain engaged at key transition points
Learning is institutionalized and shared across the organization
Mature clients recognize that ramp-up performance is not a commissioning issue. It is an organizational capability outcome. They design their organizations accordingly.
Why the system reinforces the gap
This challenge is not simply a matter of oversight. It is often a function of how projects are structured.
1. Phase-based delivery models
Projects are segmented into stages with defined gates and handovers.
Each phase is optimized for its own objectives:
Feasibility focuses on viability and approval
Execution focuses on scope, schedule, and cost
Operations focuses on production and performance
While necessary, this structure can fragment accountability.
2. Misaligned incentives
Different stakeholders are measured against different outcomes:
Early-stage teams are rewarded for advancing projects
Execution teams are measured on delivery metrics
Operations are accountable for ramp-up performance
Few incentives are tied to long-term outcomes across all phases.
3. Organizational turnover
Personnel changes are a reality in long project lifecycles. Even in stable organizations, the individuals who defined the process, approved key trade-offs, and accepted specific risks are often not present during ramp-up.
The consequence: learning without ownership
Project post-mortems are effective at identifying causes. They are far less effective at establishing ownership.
This leads to a recurring pattern:
The same risks are accepted under new circumstances
The same trade-offs are made under schedule pressure
The same outcomes occur during ramp-up
Each project generates insight. Few organizations systematically retain accountability for applying it. This is why similar issues continue to appear across projects, even within the same organizations.
Accountability as a continuous thread
If ramp-up performance is shaped early, accountability must extend across the full lifecycle. This requires a shift from phase-based ownership to outcome-based ownership. The key question becomes:
Who is accountable not just for delivering the project, but for delivering its performance?
Answering this requires continuity.
Practical shifts to establish accountability
1. Define ownership of outcomes early
Accountability for ramp-up performance should be established during project development. Ownership should persist beyond individual phases. This includes clear ownership of key assumptions, alignment on performance targets, and explicit acceptance of risks.
2. Maintain continuity in critical roles
Where possible, maintain involvement of key decision-makers across phases. This does not require full team continuity, but it does require retention of institutional knowledge, as well as direct linkage between early decisions and their eventual outcomes.
3. Align incentives across the lifecycle
Performance metrics should reflect long-term outcomes, not only phase-specific deliverables. This may include:
Linking project success metrics to ramp-up performance
Shared accountability between project and operations teams
Recognition of decisions that protect long-term value
4. Integrate project and operations teams early
Operational readiness should not begin at commissioning. Operations must be involved during design reviews, risk assessments, and trade-off decisions. This ensures that those accountable for performance contribute to shaping it.
5. Track critical decisions and their rationale
Projects generate thousands of decisions. Few are systematically tracked with their intended outcomes and associated risks.
Better accountability and learning are enabled by transparency around what decisions were made, why they were made, and what assumptions they rely on.
A shift in mindset
This is not about assigning blame. It is about aligning responsibility with influence. In high-performing organizations:
Accountability is not deferred to the end of the project
Ownership is not reset at each phase
Decisions are made with a clear line of sight to their long-term impact
Without this alignment, even well-run projects can underperform during ramp-up.
The broader implication
Accountability without continuity leads to repetition. Projects do not fail because the causes are unknown. They fail because the system does not ensure those causes are identified and addressed. As projects become more complex and more accelerated, this gap becomes more consequential. Closing it is not a procedural exercise. It is a structural and cultural shift. It is also a competitive differentiator.
Organizations that can demonstrate clear accountability across the lifecycle build stronger reputations, execute with greater consistency, and are better positioned to secure capital and stakeholder confidence.
What’s next?
In the next part of this series, we will explore how reliability and performance metrics can reinforce accountability by connecting early decisions to measurable outcomes during commissioning and ramp-up.
We welcome your input. Share the topics you would like us to explore in future blogs at britt.mackinnon@hatch.com.
About the author
Britt MacKinnon
Process Engineer, CORE
Britt MacKinnon, P. Eng completed her Applied Sciences degree in Chemical Engineering and Certificate in Business at Queen’s University in 2019, and she was invited back to Queen’s University to deliver the keynote about the importance of ethics in engineering. Britt is part of Hatch's CORE (Commissioning, Operations Readiness, and Ramp-up Excellence) team and is currently on site in Idaho, USA supporting the commissioning of a mill restart. Her work has taken her across the globe to Brisbane, Australia, for nearly two years, beginning in 2023, before being assigned to North Carolina, USA to serve as a process engineer.
Britt serves on the MetSoc Board of Directors as the Sustainability Section Chair and was recognized with a 2021 Association for Iron & Steel Technology (AIST) Presidential Citation for her “contributions as a Young Professional and rising leader in AIST”. AIST is the global leader in networking, education and sustainability programs for advancing iron and steel technology.
Melfi Villanueva
Regional Director, CORE
Melfi Villanueva earned his Bachelor of Metallurgical Engineering from San Agustin University of Peru and has a Master’s Degree in Extractive Metallurgy and MBA. He brings 25 years of plant operations, metallurgical research, business readiness, commissioning, ramp-up and asset management experience, including fifteen years in HATCH developing multiple strategic advisory roles into the organization. Melfi brings a unique blend of deep technical expertise, consultancy, and business leadership. He is a passionate and recognized thought leader and thoroughly understands client requirements. His strengths include the development of strategies to achieve continuous improvement in various organizations.
Our perspectives
More conversations about the world's biggest challenges
.jpg)
.jpg?h=160&iar=0&w=160)
