Skip to the content


End User

SIS Consultant

Who We Are - Safety Lifecycle Software Tools

In business since 1998, aeSolutions is a process safety consulting, engineering and automation company that provides lifecycle solutions and tools to our clients. We focus on helping clients close the ISA84/IEC 61511 functional safety loop and achieve their risk management objectives as their customer-focused solutions provider. aeSolutions started designing aeShield after realizing that the one thing that would ultimately improve the safety of the process industry, was a database-driven safety lifecycle platform created for engineers by engineers. Our own engineers’ lifecycle experience with mounds of paperwork, data, and highlighters drove the need for a simpler way and a software framework to pave that path. And then, aeShield was born – created to make safety simple.
powered by aesolutions

Latest from the Blog

See all

Imagine you have just completed, after 6-months of team time, your PHA and LOPA for your largest and most profitable unit.  A much deserved congratulatory pat on the back is warranted. After a very brief respite and celebration, the real work begins in order to cost effectively remove risk from the unit.  Your study has identified 10’s to 100’s of hazardous scenarios that do not meet your corporate risk criteria.  Some of these include recommendations by the study team.  However, depending on your organization, not every scenario that fails to meet the corporate risk criteria has to have a recommendation.  Let’s call all of these scenarios that fail to meet your corporate risk criteria your “inherited gaps”.

Your company has started the journey for compliance to the IEC 61511 safety lifecycle, but it’s a long and arduous path to get organizational alignment around the benefits of the safety lifecycle.  So, what’s a relatively quick win you could get that will help demonstrate to management some of the end game benefits?  You’ve identified all of your SIFs and are testing them, and so far you’ve collected 3 failures.  Is this good?  Is this bad?  How do we quickly assess?  If we simply calculate the percentage of failures out of total devices tested, it’s a very small figure, and management might incorrectly jump to the mindset of “let’s start extending test intervals.”  What if we could quickly and easily identify a simple pass/fail target of number of failures/year for your SIF field devices?