Three delivered plant projects. Each figure links to the case study behind it.
BoM error rate after CAD-to-SAP integration, midstream gas processing plant
Integration of CAD/BIM with SAP casemulti-discipline model review cycle, 8 disciplines including piping
3D model review tool caseoperator onboarding on an air separation unit
Operator training simulator case
Capital projects bleed time and budget through four workflow gaps that spreadsheets and generic tools cannot close.
Engineering teams spend days extracting equipment specifications and piping materials from Plant 3D or AVEVA E3D models, formatting them into spreadsheets, and manually entering data into SAP for procurement and maintenance.
Multi-discipline process plant projects generate hundreds of clashes between piping, equipment, structures, electrical, and instrumentation – tracked manually in Excel with resolution taking days per conflict.
Plant operators require extensive hands-on training before working with critical process equipment – but training on live facilities creates safety risks, production disruption, and lengthy certification cycles.
Engineering data lives in CAD systems, procurement operates in ERP, and project controls work in separate databases – no single source of truth, constant reconciliation, and delayed decisions from incomplete visibility.
Purpose-built automation tools that address the specific workflow challenges of midstream and upstream process plant engineering.
Bi-directional synchronisation between AutoCAD Plant 3D, AVEVA E3D and SAP S/4HANA. Not a generic connector – a custom platform handling schema mismatches, project-specific naming conventions, SAP validation rules and change tracking. Delivered on Plant 3D: BoM entry ~4 hours → under 15 minutes per package, errors ~15% → under 2%.
CAD-ERP IntegrationCentralised model review replacing spreadsheet tracking with discipline ownership logic, version control and automated notification. 8-discipline facility: review cycle 10 days → 3-4 days.
Clash Detection & Model ReviewUnity-based training environments built from your actual 3D models, P&IDs and PFDs – not generic plant templates. A real-time process model responds to operator actions, so opening a valve propagates consequences and alarms cascade as they would on site. ASU project: onboarding 4-6 months → 2-3 months, training cost per operator down 60%.
Operator Training SimulatorsEquipment lists, line lists, valve schedules and instrumentation data extracted from P&IDs and 3D models, regenerated on revision rather than rebuilt. Reporting that absorbed hours per project now runs in seconds.
CAD Data Export & Reporting
A "pipe" in Plant 3D is a geometric object with engineering properties. A "pipe" in SAP is a material master record with procurement attributes. Mapping between them requires project-specific rules – your naming conventions, your material classification, your compliance requirements. No generic connector handles this.
Navisworks detects clashes. Nobody manages their resolution out of the box – assigning the right discipline based on scope splits, tracking version states across parallel model updates, capturing decision trails for audit.
AVEVA PML, Smart 3D tools, Plant 3D SDK – these are niche APIs with minimal public documentation. AI code generation doesn't work on them. Your internal team is too busy with project delivery. We develop natively in PML, PML.NET, AVEVA E3D API, Smart 3D tools, and AutoCAD Plant 3D SDK – and we understand the engineering context behind the code.
Generic operator training simulators use library process models from a different facility type. Your ASU, your compression train, your cryogenic system has a specific thermodynamic configuration that determines real plant behaviour. Training on the wrong dynamics creates false confidence.
Every data movement between engineering and enterprise systems is a potential audit finding. Our integration pipelines log every transfer with timestamps, source records, and validation results – bi-directionally. This isn't a compliance add-on. It's a structural requirement for engineering-grade automation in O&G.
AutoCAD Plant 3D
AVEVA E3D
Intergraph Smart 3D
SAP S/4HANA
CAESAR II
Aspen HYSYS
Yes. Our DesignBridge platform supports bi-directional integration between AVEVA E3D and SAP S/4HANA, handling the schema mismatches, project-specific naming conventions, and SAP validation rules that make generic connectors fail. The same architecture we deployed for AutoCAD Plant 3D–SAP integration on a midstream gas processing plant – where it eliminated 15% BoM error rates and saved 1,200+ engineering hours per year – is applicable to E3D environments.
We work with AutoCAD Plant 3D, AVEVA E3D (Everything3D), and Intergraph Smart 3D – the three dominant platforms in midstream and upstream process plant engineering. Our integration, clash detection, and data extraction tools are built on the APIs and data structures specific to each platform, not on generic file-based workflows.
Our OTS eliminates the need for operators to learn on live equipment. Built from your actual 3D model and P&IDs, the simulator lets trainees practice standard procedures, emergency shutdowns, and fault scenarios – cryogenic leaks, compressor surge, power loss – with zero risk. On an ASU project, this approach reduced onboarding safety incidents by 80% and achieved 90% retention of operational procedures, because operators arrived at the live plant having already practiced every critical scenario multiple times.
On a midstream gas processing plant, the integration saved roughly 1,200 engineering hours a year – about $120,000 at a $100/hour rate – by cutting BoM data entry from around 4 hours to under 15 minutes per package. Beyond labour: error rates fell from about 15% to under 2%, engineering-to-procurement handover went from 6+ weeks to 1 week, and asset registration in SAP from about 10 days to same day. For facilities with thousands of line items per package, payback is measured in months.
The validation, mapping and synchronisation architecture is platform-independent; what changes is the extraction layer – PML and the E3D data model, or the Smart 3D API, instead of the Plant 3D SDK. We scope that layer explicitly rather than assuming it carries over. Our delivered SAP integration was built on Plant 3D, and we’d rather say that than imply a delivery we haven’t made.
Let's map your workflow and find the leaks – where time, accuracy, and capacity are being lost. Book a 30-minute workflow assessment where we'll walk through how your engineering data currently flows – from Plant 3D or E3D design through BoM generation, procurement, clash coordination, and asset handover.
