Automated MTO extraction from P&IDs.

And in every case today, it is produced manually.

The manual MTO process

A typical MTO engagement begins with an engineer receiving a set of P&IDs — either native CAD exports or, more commonly, PDF scans and archived drawings of varying vintages. The engineer opens each drawing and systematically reads through it, recording every piece of equipment, every line (with size, material, service, and pressure rating), every valve, every instrument, and every relevant fitting into a spreadsheet or structured template.

For a complex P&ID — a reactor system, a distillation column, a compressor station — this process typically takes 8 to 24 hours per drawing. The range depends on drawing density, scan quality, symbology complexity, and the engineer's familiarity with the facility's conventions.

Beyond the per-drawing cost, two additional sources of error compound into the final MTO. First, cross-drawing connectivity — the reality that a full process system spans many individual sheets connected by off-page connectors — is almost always missed by single-drawing manual reads. Second, revision drift — the gap between the latest drawing revision and the actual physical installation — adds a second layer of inaccuracy on any brownfield project.

The typical net result across industrial projects is a 5 to 15 percent MTO overpurchase relative to the accurate count. On large lump-sum EPC contracts, this overpurchase translates directly into margin erosion. On operator turnaround budgets, it translates into stockpiled inventory that never gets used.

How Armeta transforms MTO

Armeta's extraction engine processes a P&ID in stages. For MTO specifically, the relevant stages are extract, connect, and deliver.

At the extract stage, Armeta identifies every equipment item, every line, every valve, every instrument, and every fitting on the drawing. For each object, Armeta produces a structured record: object type, tag or label, service designation, size, material specification, and spatial position within the drawing. This output replaces the engineer's manual spreadsheet transcription.

At the connect stage, Armeta reads the off-page connector annotations and builds the cross-drawing connectivity graph. Lines that continue from one drawing to another are reconciled. Equipment counts are cross-checked against related drawings. The facility-level graph catches what single-drawing reads miss.

At the deliver stage, the structured MTO is produced as a structured Excel workbook (matching your facility's format conventions), as a JSON export for integration with procurement systems, or as a direct API feed into your engineering systems.

The engineering outcome

For a typical 500-P&ID engagement:

• Manual MTO extraction: 500 drawings × 16 hours (midpoint) × $120/hour loaded cost = $960,000 in engineering labor.
• Armeta MTO extraction: 500 drawings × 0.5 hours validation time × $120/hour = $30,000 in engineering labor.
• Engineering hours reclaimed: 7,750 hours.
• Typical overpurchase reduction: 5–15% on brownfield projects, fully captured by the improved accuracy.

These are the direct engineering savings. They do not capture the downstream value: faster turnaround planning, more accurate procurement specifications, reduced stockpiling, better change order defense on EPC projects, and reduced schedule risk on brownfield engagements.

Integration with your systems

The MTO output feeds directly into the systems already in your stack — procurement and ERP platforms, engineering document management, asset management systems, and project controls tools. Armeta supports delivery through API, JSON export, or structured Excel formats calibrated to your facility's conventions.

For facilities running SAP, IBM Maximo, AVEVA PI System, or other enterprise systems, integration guides are available in the Resources section. For facilities with custom workflows, Armeta's engineering team works directly with your IT or digital transformation team to scope the integration.

Regulatory context

MTO is not a directly regulated workflow in the same way that PHA or LDAR are. However, MTO accuracy is operationally and contractually consequential. On EPC lump-sum contracts, MTO accuracy determines whether the project delivers margin or erodes it. On operator turnaround budgets, MTO accuracy determines whether the shutdown runs on schedule or slips.