Why practical skills matter more than ever
What happened
An experienced engineer argues that AI tools are helpful for code snippets and documentation but don't replace hands-on troubleshooting experts when plants go off-nominal. The practical point is that AI is probabilistic and supports engineers rather than substituting them, so training and on-site skills remain central to effective incident response
Buyer takeaway
Keep headcount and onsite-response SLAs as contracted deliverables; treat AI as a productivity aid, not a substitution for field crews
Cost / money
Reducing onsite headcount risks longer outage durations and higher emergency mobilisation costs, shifting total operational spend even if baseline labour appears lower
Supplier / commercial
Suppliers may present AI tools as value-adds to justify platform fees; require clear delineation of hours, responsibilities and escalation between AI support and human response
Safety / operations
Operational safety and plant stability depend on experienced troubleshooters; over-reliance on remote AI guidance increases risk during non-routine failures
What to watch
Don't accept AI or remote‑only support as fulfilment of onsite response obligations without explicit SLAs and acceptance tests
Key facts
- Industry perspective from an engineer with long operational experience
- Examples include PLC code snippets, loop tuning support, and documentation summarisation
Source excerpts
The scaremongering has reached a crescendo; with the assertion that AI tools will replace knowledge-based professionals, including engineers
They call the troubleshooting expert
The teaching and learning sessions are live and interactive, covering job-aligned modules and presented by real, grizzled instrumentation veterans (not AI-bots or even humans with PhDs). There are troubleshooting exercises using realistic scenarios, and assessments that reward diagnosis and decision-making, not memorisation
