Archive for category: Employer Insights

A revised capital schedule creates a workforce decision as well as a planning decision. Which specialist capability should remain attached to the programme, which can move to another priority, and which commitment should wait until the work is confirmed?

For multinational engineering and manufacturing teams in Ireland, the useful conversation starts beyond established onboarding and supplier controls. It concerns the trade-offs between delivery capacity, commercial commitments and the knowledge needed to restart or accelerate work.

Reassess the work before extending the team

Consider a hypothetical programme where equipment delivery moves back, while another project brings its automation milestone forward. Extending every existing engagement may preserve availability, but it can also commit capacity to work that is not ready. Releasing everyone may leave the programme without the people who understand its design decisions.

Start with the changed work packages. Identify what can proceed, what depends on the delayed milestone and what has become more urgent elsewhere. Then reassess the capability, level of effort and timing each package requires. A revised completion date alone is an incomplete brief for a workforce partner.

Make competing priorities visible

An automation specialist, project engineer or commissioning lead may be relevant to several programmes. Review their proposed allocation across the portfolio, including preparation, technical review and handover time. Avoid assuming that the same person can cover two peaks because the programmes sit in different reporting structures.

Ask programme owners to agree which milestone takes priority, what can move and who can authorise the change. A capacity plan should show the consequence of that decision for the other programme, rather than quietly transferring the constraint.

As a reference point, the UK Government’s project delivery standard addresses balancing resource supply and demand, replanning when resources are insufficient and assessing the effects of changes. It applies to UK government delivery; it is not a requirement for Irish multinational employers. The recommendations here are practical options for employer teams to assess within their own governance.

Compare hold, redeploy and release

For each specialist requirement, compare three options against the revised programme:

Hold capacity where there is confirmed productive work and continuity justifies the commitment. Define the work during the intervening period rather than treating an extension as a default.

Redeploy capacity where another approved priority needs the same capability. Agree the receiving scope, duration and conditions for any return. Check the relevant contractual arrangements before changing assignments.

Release capacity where the requirement is no longer sufficiently defined. Record the restart assumptions and recognise that a later return by the same specialist is not guaranteed.

This is a decision framework, not a universal preference for one option. Assess committed cost, useful work, dependencies, continuity risk and the practical feasibility of returning when needed.

Protect the knowledge needed for the next phase

Before changing an engagement, identify the decisions and unresolved issues that another person would need to understand. For example, capture the rationale behind an automation interface, outstanding technical queries, acceptance criteria and the owner of each open decision.

Where continuity is critical, consider a defined transition period or limited review support, subject to the engagement terms. Be explicit about the output and availability required. Keeping an individual engaged without clear work is different from commissioning a specific knowledge-transfer or technical-review deliverable.

Match the engagement to the revised requirement

Separate enduring capability from a temporary programme peak and from a defined service output. Specialist Placements, Contingent Workforce Solutions and Professional Service Engagements merit consideration against those different requirements; the choice should follow the scope, accountability and duration of the work.

Bring the revised work packages, confirmed milestones, uncertain dependencies and cross-project priorities into the discussion with your workforce partner. Ask for options against those assumptions, including the implications of a further delay or acceleration.

Berkley’s Engineering Workforce Solutions cover specialist disciplines including project engineering, automation, mechanical, electrical and process engineering. If your capital programme has changed, discuss the capability you need to retain, redeploy or add with Berkley.

Related reading: engineering capital project workforce planning.

Discuss your engineering workforce requirements with Berkley.

Reference: GovS 002, sections 7.4 and 7.7, checked 2 October 2026.

An engineering capital project needs a workforce plan that connects specialist capability to the delivery schedule. A headcount total cannot show whether the right expertise will be available for the next design decision, site activity or handover.

For employers planning projects in Ireland, a useful starting point is a view of the work by phase: what must be delivered, what it depends on and who is responsible for it. The resource requirement can then be tested against the programme rather than discussed in isolation.

This guide sets out a practical planning approach for project and engineering leaders. Adapt it to the scale, sector and governance of the actual project.

Start with the next decision and work package

Break the programme into meaningful packages and milestones. Identify the specialist input required to move each package forward, including technical decisions, coordination and review.

For each package, record:

• The output or decision required and the person accountable for it.
• The relevant engineering discipline and level of responsibility.
• Inputs that must be available before the work starts.
• Interfaces with vendors, other disciplines and operational teams.
• The expected period of specialist involvement.
• The evidence or information needed at handover.

Use the record to challenge a proposed start date. If the work is not ready, decide whether the person can contribute to preparation, whether another capability is needed first or whether the date should change.

Distinguish capability from availability

For each role or package, assess both the expertise required and the time available to perform the work. An internal specialist may have the relevant experience while also being committed to operational responsibilities or another project.

Ask the internal owner to confirm the capacity that can actually be allocated. Include technical reviews and decision-making time, not just execution activities.

The UK Government’s Project Delivery Functional Standard, section 7.4 offers a useful reference: it addresses future resource needs, shortfalls and replanning when resources are insufficient. It applies within UK government; it is cited here as a planning reference, not as a requirement for Irish employers.

For your own project, make the capacity assumption explicit. Show what changes if a shared specialist cannot provide the planned time.

Make interfaces part of the resource brief

A technical assignment should explain who the specialist needs to work with. Identify the project lead, relevant discipline leads, vendor contacts and the operational team receiving the work.

Agree how design queries, changes and unresolved issues will be raised. Include who can decide, who should be consulted and how the decision will be recorded.

Where two packages depend on each other, assign responsibility for the interface. Do not leave the workforce plan to imply that this coordination will happen simply because both packages have named engineers.

Review the interface arrangements when the project moves into a different phase. The people who need to participate in a design discussion may differ from those needed for installation, commissioning or operational handover.

Plan mobilisation before confirming the start

Develop a short readiness check for each assignment. Suggested items include access, induction, training, equipment, technical documentation and confirmation of the first work package.

Agree who will brief the specialist and review the initial output. If the assignment involves site-based work, confirm its actual attendance requirements rather than leaving them implicit in a general role description.

Record dependencies that remain open and the person responsible for resolving them. Distinguish a target mobilisation date from a confirmed date, particularly where the project depends on vendor delivery or completion of another package.

This gives both the programme and the specialist a clearer basis for planning the assignment.

Review the plan as the programme moves

Maintain a near-term view of confirmed work and a longer-term view of expected demand. Choose the review frequency to match the pace and uncertainty of the project.

At each review, ask which milestones have changed, what new capability is needed and whether current assignments still match the work. Record the effect on budget, resource duration and the receiving teams.

For a delayed package, consider the options before simply extending every assignment. Some work may continue; some may need to be resequenced; some may require a different specialist contribution. Make those decisions with the relevant technical and commercial owners.

Do the same when a programme accelerates. Identify the prerequisites for additional capacity and the management support that capacity will require.

Build handover into the workforce plan

Define what the next phase or operational team needs to receive. Suggested handover items include the agreed documentation, open issues, decision history, training and named owners of remaining actions.

Ask the receiving team to review the proposed handover while the relevant specialists are still engaged. Where overlap is needed, allow for it in the assignment plan and agree what it is intended to achieve.

Avoid using the departure date of an individual as the definition of a completed package. Establish the completion criteria and then plan the resource around them.

Choose the engagement around the work

A programme may need an individual engineer to support an established team, several specialists across phases or a separately defined professional service. Discuss the management responsibilities and deliverables before selecting the arrangement.

Berkley’s Engineering practice covers specialist disciplines including mechanical, electrical, process, project, validation and automation. When preparing a brief, explain the package, interfaces and mobilisation dependencies as well as the technical skills.

Speak to Berkley about workforce planning for your engineering programme.

For a pharmaceutical facility expansion, start CQV workforce planning with the systems, evidence and decisions the project needs to deliver. A request for a number of engineers is only one part of that plan.

Commissioning, qualification and validation bring together engineering activity, documented evidence and quality oversight. For an Irish pharmaceutical employer, a useful team brief should connect specialist responsibilities to the site’s approved approach and the actual readiness of the work.

The following planning questions are intended to support that brief. The site’s pharmaceutical quality system and approved procedures should govern the technical work.

Establish the qualification and validation framework

The European Commission’s EU GMP Annex 15 sets out qualification and validation principles. Sections 1.1–1.5 address lifecycle planning, suitably trained personnel, quality oversight and a validation master plan or equivalent, including roles and responsibilities.

The Commission’s current EudraLex Volume 4 index lists this Annex as operational from 1 October 2015. Its original publication date should not be confused with a new requirement introduced in 2026.

For workforce planning, turn the site’s framework into an explicit responsibility map. Identify who prepares documents, who executes work, who reviews evidence and who has authority to approve progression. Use the site’s actual approval structure rather than assuming those responsibilities from job titles.

Scope the work by system and deliverable

Create a working inventory of the systems and packages within the expansion. For each one, record the intended deliverables, current status, dependencies and accountable lead.

A practical planning record could include:

• The system or equipment package and its agreed boundary.
• The required technical knowledge and relevant project experience.
• The documentation available and any information still outstanding.
• The expected execution activities and review requirements.
• Dependencies on construction, vendors, utilities or automation.
• The point at which the work will be handed to the receiving team.

Use this inventory to develop the workforce requirement. It gives a prospective specialist a clearer description of the assignment and gives the programme team a basis for testing whether the proposed resource fits.

Avoid presenting this inventory as a substitute for the qualification strategy. Its purpose is to translate approved work into a manageable resource brief.

Separate execution capacity from review capacity

When estimating the team, allocate time to document preparation, execution, review, issue resolution and completion. Record the internal contribution as well as the external resource requirement.

Annex 15 section 2.2 states that qualification and validation documents should be approved and authorised by appropriate personnel defined within the pharmaceutical quality system. Bringing in additional specialists does not, by itself, establish those approval arrangements.

Ask each workstream lead to confirm the expected review workload and availability of the relevant reviewers. Where the same person covers several packages, show that shared demand in the plan.

This makes the capacity discussion specific. It also gives the programme a place to record what should change if execution progresses faster or slower than expected.

Build the mobilisation plan around readiness

Before agreeing a start date, check what the specialist needs in order to carry out the first assignment. Suggested checks include site induction, required training, access permissions, approved procedures, document access and the readiness of the relevant system.

Assign an owner to unresolved dependencies. Distinguish “the person can start” from “the planned work is ready to start”. If those dates differ, agree what useful preparatory work can be undertaken and how the arrangement will be reviewed.

For a phased expansion, maintain a short forward look at upcoming packages. Record likely mobilisation dates, confirmed dates and the decisions required to move from one to the other. Do not present a provisional date as a commitment to either the specialist or the project team.

Assess experience against the assignment

A CQV title should be the beginning of the assessment. Ask for relevant experience with the type of system, documentation environment and responsibilities involved in the proposed assignment.

Useful discussion prompts include:

• Which comparable systems has the person worked on, and in what capacity?
• Which documents did they prepare, execute or review?
• How did they work with engineering, automation and quality colleagues?
• What site-specific training or familiarisation would this assignment require?
• What would they need clarified before accepting responsibility for the work?

Keep this assessment proportionate to the role. An execution specialist, a workstream lead and a programme coordinator should not receive an identical brief simply because they work within the same CQV programme.

Plan for completion and handover

Include the final evidence and handover activities in the resource plan. Agree who will collate records, resolve outstanding items and explain the status of the work to the receiving team.

Where an assignment is approaching its end, review open responsibilities before deciding whether to extend, reduce or release the resource. Record what has been completed and what remains with a named owner.

Ask the receiving team what it needs to take over the package. That conversation should happen while the people who performed the work are still available to explain it.

Define the engagement before building the team

Discuss whether the requirement is for individual specialists working within the existing site structure or a defined professional service engagement. In either case, document interfaces, responsibilities and the site’s retained oversight.

Berkley’s Life Science practice supports specialist workforce requirements across pharmaceutical and life science organisations. Share the system scope, programme phase, responsibilities and likely mobilisation dates when briefing the team.

Talk to Berkley about CQV workforce planning for your next programme.