Int. J. Strategic Engineering Asset Management, Vol. 1, No.

1, 2012 49

Framework and systematic functional criteria for

integrated work processes in complex assets: a case
study on integrated planning in offshore oil and gas
production industry

Yu Bai
Vetco Gray Scandinavia AS,
Sothammargeilen 1, Bygg 10,
Dusavik, 4029 Stavanger, Norway
E-mail: [email protected]

Jayantha P. Liyanage*
Faculty of Science and Technology,
University of Stavanger,
N-4036, Stavanger, Norway
E-mail: [email protected]
*Corresponding author

Abstract: Improving the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of the oil and gas
(O&G) production process is considered as a critical timely need. The core
work processes in particular are targeted for considerable improvements. In this
context, development related to integrated planning (IP) is seen as one of the
major bases for developing collaborative work processes connecting offshore
production and onshore support system. With feasible benefits, for instance,
relating to reduction of non-working time, less work repetition, reduction of
reduction in production losses, better resource utilisation, etc., a systematic and
a complete IP system is today seen as an attractive solution for integrating
complex operations and to work smarter. This paper, based on a case study
from North Sea oil and gas production environment, describes the systematic
functional criteria required as the basis for developing a fully functional IP
system.

Keywords: integrated planning; IP; integrated work processes; IWP; asset

management; business processes; integrated operations; IO.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Bai, Y. and Liyanage, J.P.
(2012) ‘Framework and systematic functional criteria for integrated work
processes in complex assets: a case study on integrated planning in offshore oil
and gas production industry’, Int. J. Strategic Engineering Asset Management,
Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.49–68.

Biographical notes: Yu Bai is a PhD candidate at the Centre of Industrial

Asset Management (CIAM) of the University of Stavanger. He is an employee
of Vetco Gray Scandinavia AS. He received his Master’s in Global Production
Engineering from the Technical University of Berlin in 2006 and his
Bachelor’s in Statistics from Xiamen University in 2002. He is currently
involved in the PhD project for integrated work processes and planning
optimisation within offshore petroleum industry.

Copyright © 2012 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

50 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

Jayantha P. Liyanage is a Professor of Industrial Asset Management at the

University of Stavanger (UiS), Norway. He is the Chair and Project Advisor
of the Centre Industrial Asset Management (CIAM) and serves on the Board
of Directors of the Society of Petroleum Engineers (Stavanger Chapter). He
is a Coorganiser and Coordinator of the European Network for Strategic
Engineering Asset Management (EURENSEAM), Honourary Founding Fellow
of the ISEAM (International Society of Engineering Asset Management) and
the Editor-in-Chief of the International Journal of Strategic Engineering Asset
Management (IJSEAM). He has published more than 75 publications in various
books, international journals and conferences over the last few years, and has
received a number of awards for his achievements.

1 Introduction and background

After years of active growth, the world economy seems to be decelerating, with severe
effects from the financial crisis, causing considerable deflation (IMF, 2008). Although on
a long-term perspective, there is a requirement for continuous oil production as
previously expected (EIA, 2008), the current standing with respect to shrinking consumer
markets and manufacturing activities seems to have some effects on oil prices and thus
profitability (Fletcher, 2009). On the other hand, the oil and gas (O&G) industry is also
affected by maturing production, fewer new developments, challenging projects, and
rising production costs. This challenging environment forces O&G producers to reduce
the unnecessary economical losses, and generate constructive solutions and actions to
improve the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of O&G production and exploration
process (Kutucuoglu et al., 2001).
O&G production and exploration process can be observed in general as a long-term
activity involving complex work processes for continuous production with commitment
of considerable investments (Hollingum, 1986; Liyanage, 2007). While facing today’s
unprecedented demands and constant need for cost-effectiveness, O&G industry strives
for optimised profits by exploiting current production capacities and available resources
to the fullest (Wright and Spaven, 1999; Holmstroem and Drejer, 1996). The key
challenge here is to implement necessary solutions to enhance the integration between
offshore production facility and onshore support systems, removing various conventional
obstacles from the present operational practises, to minimise losses to retain a high level
of production effectiveness (Horton and Dedigama, 2006; Liyanage and Langeland,
2009; OLF, 2005). It implies that the kind of optimisation that O&G producers prefer in
this regard is a multi-layered and wide-range development that is not only limited to few
disciplines’ and their responsibilities, but that involves an active integration of many
different functional disciplines in the complex production environment (Oke et al., 2006;
Askerdal et al., 2003; Piggin, 2007; Kutucuoglu et al., 2001; Yam et al., 2000).
In this context in North Sea, a novel solution termed integrated operations (IO) was
initiated few years ago and currently under implementation to integrate assets and
complex operations aiming at considerable economical benefits (OLF, 2005). The IO
concept provides the basis and also has a large impact on the integration of traditional
work processes within and between organisations. This paper describes a very central
issue related to this emerging work process management practise [i.e., integrated work
processes (IWP)] under IO programme, termed integrated work planning (abbreviated as
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 51

IP). This was a part of a project titled ‘Integrated work processes for complex operations’
that particularly intended to look into the methods, techniques, and practises for Work
process integration within IO. IP is a very novel concept, particularly for the O&G
industry, and ongoing efforts to master IP process is often met with serious challenges
due to complexities and lack of understanding on the core functional aspects critical to IP
development frame.

2 Study methodology

This paper covers the important elements of integrated planning (IP) process and its
functional modules based on an industrial Case study. The study was conducted with one
of the major O&G producers in North Sea as a part of an ongoing project on work
process integration. The study focused on the systematic development of the entire (IP)
process, and identification of central functional criteria required for development and
implementation of a comprehensive IP process. The description is based on empirical
data obtained through participation in company’s internal programmes and projects,
using the knowledge of professionals and experts in the field, coupled together with the
existing knowledge on work planning in the academia.
The required empirical materials for the study were collected for a period of more
than a year. The data collection process involved communication with key offshore
engineers, cooperation with IP planners, review of project reports in the company, and
active participation in the company’s internal project. This also involved IP related
workshops and group meetings. The work started with the identification of functional
modules of the IPWP according to current IP system of the company involved. The
detailed criteria were later built up systematically with the gradual progression of the
project, looking into more specific contents within functional modules. The knowledge
gathered and the findings made were continuously verified through meetings with and
consultation of personnel involved in IP process, and presentations to company
representatives.

3 Integrated operations (IO) and work process integration

IO, a new operational concept, was introduced to the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS)
during early 2000s, as the way to solve some of the critical challenges in industry. It
seeks to optimise business performance through integration of core operational
disciplines and different phases of inter-dependent work processes. This is now under
implementation at various levels promoting active cooperative organisations and
collaborative production management involving different business partners and different
geographical locations (Liyanage, 2007; OLF, 2005).
The concept of IO addresses a timely need for optimising the current value in
operational processes (Ormerod et al., 2007). From infrastructure and system solution
perspective, IO can also be seen, in a way, as an integration of a series of advanced
solutions that can be applied for real-time operation, collaborative decision making, and
smart activity execution. This intends to close the traditional gaps between offshore
production and onshore support systems, and even between producers and external
52 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

service providers (OLF, 2005). The level of actual value creation, based on IO, depends
much on, for instance, people-process-technology integration level, better and quicker
decision making capability, heavy focus on information management solutions,
infrastructure development, centralised group-based collaboration arrangements, work
processes reengineering, and new technology application efforts.
The IO implementation process in the Norwegian O&G industry is expected to
undergo two major steps denoted as ‘Generation 1’ (G1) and ‘Generation 2’ (G2) as
shown in Figure 1. The G1 and G2 stages have different levels of impact on the
integration of traditional work processes.

Figure 1 The two major steps of IO (see online version for colours)
Value
Integration across
companies or work net

Integration across on-

and offshore

Limited integration

Tradition Generation1 Generation2

Source: OLF (2005)

G1 was characterised as the foundation for the establishment of advanced onshore remote
support centres that is expected to efficiently integrate offshore platform and onshore
support system. G2 brings a more advanced level of integration based on an extension of
GI further to integrate different geographical locations, production stakeholders and
vendors. This will have wider implications on the decision-making and work
management loops where continuous remote monitoring and onshore-based operational
support become key attributes of value creation.
Obviously as G1 and G2 illustrates, one of the necessary conditions for the
development of IO towards a fully collaborative work environment is to reengineer the
management of internal and external work processes. The degree of efficiency and high
reliability of integration within/between organisations and subsequent performances can
be attributed to the level of work process integration realised at G1 and G2 levels. The
traditional work-process related practises of various disciplines is such that they remain
very much decentralised with independent characteristics, and has limited interface with
other disciplines within the functional organisation structure. Formally, those disciplines
execute their operations with pure focus on their own processes. The onshore support is
formally provided by the experts within the own functional disciplines or groups. The
related parallel processes have less or no interactions with other disciplines or groups.
The cooperation is more localised, and experts and crew are familiar mostly with
their own roles and responsibilities without a common overview of the impact on whole
field-wide operational process. Under such conditions, it has often resulted in work
related misunderstandings, planning and coordination mistakes/errors, and unnecessary
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 53

schedule/resource conflicts due to insufficiencies of information exchange,

communication, and coordination patterns. This implies that the integration of highly
decentralised work processes through a systematic mechanism is a necessity under G1
and G2 status.

4 Work process integration and IP

The systematic development of IWP involves two major aspects:

• Application of new technology/tools for better communication capacity and
information exchange:
This is characterised as the foundation for establishment of onshore support centres
(OSCs) that is expected to efficiently integrate offshore platform and onshore
support system. OSCs play a key role in IWP, and are equipped with advanced
communication tools and technologies for collaborative decision support (Liyanage
and Langeland, 2009). Using smart technologies built into the OSCs, specialists can
coordinate tasks and collaborate to deal with potential risk/incidents, and to simulate
and implement feasible options/solutions for enhanced value creation.
• Adjustment and rearrangement of current work processes and performance practises
to reduce conflicts and to improve better time and resources and capacity
management:
This in principal needs a multi-layer (i.e., shout-term, medium-term, and long-term)
planning process (that is termed as IP), which involves a reorganisation of relatively
decentralised work plans of the organisation.
Implementation of IP has gained considerable interests today in North Sea. IP in general
can be described as a planning process aimed at integrating all dispersive plans across
different disciplines, enabling the alignment of key operational planning processes to
provide a common perspective across work plans (Kayacan and Celik, 2003). In the view
of Goldkuhl and Lind (2008), the historical operational planning has mostly failed to link
strategic plans to actual operational plans. In fact, traditionally what is considered by
each operational segment, especially in offshore, is more localised and segmented. This
conventional planning practise has caused various challenges and complexities
particularly in work execution processes, for instance creating work conflicts and
resource wastes due to disorder of planning. In order to get the necessary order in work
plan management, for the purpose of value-adding activity performance, it requires a
stable and a better planning frame to integrate all operational plans into a single
centralised planning system. Such a system can be realised through systems solutions,
and also based on comprehensive database applications that helps manage key data of
critical processes necessary to generate work plans. As seen by some of the O&G
producers, such an approach to planning has principal benefits in terms of constraints
reduction, resource management, logistic coordination, etc.
IP in offshore oil production environment seems relatively novel for almost all
companies. It involves not only tools and techniques to develop application solutions, but
also a good understanding of the complex planning process and its elements that are
critical across different disciplines. Since the current planning practises date back to few
54 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

decades, it is mostly inevitable that any major change in planning process is affected by
different orientations and work related confusions. Besides, there is a lack of references,
mature guidelines, or other means to help O&G producers to develop a comprehensive IP
system and implement it in reality. Every discipline that gets involved in the IP
development process, need a well balanced approach based on their inner relationships
and potential impacts. Thus in a way, IP development involves some form of an
investigation into the different practises, interfaces, as well as deficiencies of current IP
system. This obviously is seen as an important task for all IP planners who are involved
in reengineering the work management process.
The rest of the paper elaborates on the key elements related to the IP development
process, based on the case study conducted in O&G industry. This involves and IP frame
and functional criteria of IP.

5 The IP frame

There is a basic IP frame that drives the development and application of the IP process
within the operational setting of the organisation (see Figure 2).

Figure 2 Basic frame of IP process

The frame illustrates that the performance information from different operational
disciplines is fed to an independent system/database. An integrated plan that involves
different time perspective is generated through IP process based on this database. These
periodic sub-plans can be designated as; short-term, medium-term, and long-term plans.
This is further described in Table 1.
Following the recent developments, IT-based support systems have also begun to
appear to help support analysis and reorganisation of planning information. This is an
essential part of the IP development and implementation process that also provides the
technical means to keep principles and modules of the IPWP intact. On the other hand,
the current competency levels for developing IPWPs need to be considerably improved,
which as of today seems to be a critical constraint. More importantly, since the IP is a
new process, the capability of the organisation to develop systematic functional criteria to
better coordination and management of the IP process is critical to the process.
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 55

Table 1 Multi-layer plans

Short-term plan (i.e., weekly plan)

This could be recognised as an operational plan, which specifies and schedules detailed
activities to be performed with clear roles and responsibilities. This activity plan is created by
the onshore IP team and then later on adjusted in offshore for practical execution process. In
order to get an understanding in the level of success of the planning objective, a set of
quantitative key performance indicators (KPIs) (e.g., weekly plan attainment1) is required for
later analysis and identification of necessary improvement measures. The errors and/or
deviations identified, based on the actual performance level in offshore production environment,
is reviewed and resolved at the special IP workshops. The specific measures necessary are then
reported to the decision-making layer.
Medium-term plan (i.e., monthly plan)
This is not just an operational plan ready for execution but a plan of work in medium-term. The
main emphasis is on the actual work necessary and the potential impact of, for instance,
constraints, material, logistics support, etc. This on one hand involves form of a status summary
of planning in relation to the demands and continuity in the production process. Medium-term
plan should constitute few short-term plans with common data/information resource in IP
database. Any delay in the execution of a short-term plan is reported automatically and
displayed in the medium-term plans. This is summarised in the monthly report related to IP
performance, and is taken up for necessary measures in the next period. Under this working
structure, some critical constraints, which limit the production capacity in offshore and on the
other hand strongly influence the effectiveness of integrated planning work process (IPWP),
may be collected to form an independent sub-plan during the multi-discipline workshop between
onshore and offshore. This largely helps effective coordination of work requirements and
conflicts, focusing on immediate needs with respect to production targets by actively dealing
with the critical influence factors.
Long-term plan (i.e., five-year plan)
This is a reflection of the organisation’s business development that involves specific investment
strategies and business actions, which are fundamental components of businesses eyesight and
its long-term future. Some specific constraints and risk factors (e.g., capital, workforce, etc.) are
integrated as important references to make future-oriented decisions by high-level managers.
The quality of long-term planning process, obviously, has considerable effects on the quality of
the medium-term and short-term planning process. This underlines a necessary connection
between strategic and operational levels of the organisation by means of a meaningful interface
between long-term and short-term planning process. This also highlights that the organisation
need to be able to generate clear long-term plans to effectively generate activities at
medium-term and short-term basis avoiding internal conflicts and performance deviations.

6 Functional criteria in IP

There appears to be various functional modules related to the IP process that are core to
its success. These modules play such a critical role that can introduce some serious
bottlenecks for the continuous progress and the harmonious optimisation, unless
otherwise a proper criteria is in place for systematic follow-up. Moreover, the definition
of the functional modules and clarification of their technical content helps the IP planners
56 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

to evaluate the level of achievements with respect to specifications and to workout future
development directions within the organisation.

6.1 Definition of IP functional modules

Functional modules are critical components relating to the core planning purpose, and
it involves specific functions important to the integration process. A general
planning process can involve for instance, a managerial model, planning work, and
roles and responsibility classification. But during the specific case with the O&G
producer, a comparatively broader functional content was found, as the entire IP
process needed a constant reflection on a complex set of information for continuous
review and trouble shooting when planning integration and application process is in
progress. Apart from the formal functions, a series of progress measurement method
was also seen necessary. As Mearns and Flin (1995) points out this contributes to
reduce the risk of ambitious initiatives and changes to formal work practises in
complex organisational environments. In addition, large numbers of planning data
fed by different disciplines involved, demands a high level of IT system requirement.
As mentioned previously, it was very convincing that the capabilities of the central
IT systems and tools, sets the pre-conditions in the guarantee of the smooth
plans integration process. Furthermore, with reference to the collaborative
environment within multi-disciplines who are a part of the IPWP, other functional aspects
such as, conflicts, constraints, and input criteria, were also found to have significant
impacts. The principal functional modules of the IP development process are shown in
Figure 3.

Figure 3 Functional modules of IP development (see online version for colours)

The steering model is seen as the module dedicated to control and piloting of principle
performances. It thus provides an understanding of all necessary frame conditions to
support the work of IP planners and participants from different disciplines. At the core of
IP development, is the integrated work process, which is dedicated to centralise the work
contents from different disciplines. The information required from different disciplines in
this context, is standardised by the input criteria. The integrated work process gradually
works through, data collection, conflict definition, priority decision and conflict
resolution, and finally generating periodic plans. The functional module termed roles and
responsibility’ refers to that of all planners and planning participants, and is agreed and
fixed as an inherent part of IP process.
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 57

6.2 Steering model

Steering model in principal contains a series of issues to guide and control the planning
organisation structure, operation frame, and control method for IP process (Kotorov and
Hsu, 2001). The Steering model for IP process includes three major aspects namely
operation frame, stakeholder, and documentation and training, as shown in Figure 4.

Figure 4 Steering model (see online version for colours)

Steering model offers an operation frame to IP group for providing operational concept
and principle to guide planners/participants’ performance, as well as to pilot the IP
performance development preventing unnecessary loses due to disorder in planning
process development (Kotorov and Hsu, 2001; Van de Water, 1999). It purely focuses on
inner operation pilot, human resources policy, time control, and quality measurement.
• The inner operation pilot, as an outline of IPWP, is a guide document that define the
scope of planning work, steps of work process, available resources, timeline of
milestones, specific issues related to planning requirement, and expected
method/performance of IP process application. It was always established by planners
before the IP process is launched, and was updated following the project
environment/requirement adjustment. In general, IPWP, especially in its
initial period, is not stable because of its complex nature and involvement of
multi-disciplines. The variable part, such as the definition of new requirements by
stakeholders, competence specifications due to new infrastructure or installation of
technical tools or unexpected errors/incidents, will result in an update of the current
pilot to ensure systematic IP process development as the stakeholders learn from
engagement in the process (Askerdal et al., 2003).
• Human resource policy involves organisation of adequately qualified personnel who
could offer suitable knowledge/experience to IPWP. In general, they come from
various operational, technological disciplines, and is expected posses such
characteristics as; knowledge and experience of related categories, positive attitude
58 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

for joining and engaging in IP process, and authority for decision making within
their departmental works.
• The time and quality control was normally managed by IP leader. Time control is to
finish the right task in right time. IP is a circular, periodic process that repeated in
every regular period (i.e., monthly or weekly). Time control is considered as a major
job of IP planners, aiming at conducting a team to avoid the schedule delay [as also
highlighted by Ben-Daya and Duffuaa (1995)]. Quality control is seen a valuable
way to ensure the efficiency of IPWP. For instance, planners create a detailed task
target (i.e., expected results in each workshop; appropriate quality of reports) of each
phase to ensure the efficiency of IPWP.
Steering model also offers the basis to regularise the interactions with stakeholders
(Johansson, 2008). Currently, in this ongoing IP model, the stakeholders involve external
products/service providers, existing/potential users of IP system, and coordinators at
budget, resource, and logistics levels. The level of actual work with the IP system by
individual stakeholders obviously has big gaps in comparison to the initial expectations,
and creates the need for regular periodic meetings with delegates. This is important to get
the actual feedback and to establish a common understanding (Jahansoozi, 2006). In
some situations, the stakeholders, especially end users, have no adequate experience or
positive impression on IPWP, and that raise a need for further training.
Steering model also provides series of template and rules for documentation and
reporting. All activities of IP group is summarised and saved as reference files, regardless
such reports are based on experience or lessons (Bawden, 2004). On NCS, IP planners
use the SIPOC2 and MORS3 to emulate the information delivery and documentation tasks
that need to be finished in each phase.

Figure 5 One cycle of IPWP (see online version for colours)

6.3 Integrated planning work process

IPWP, is a collection of activities that takes one or more input(s) from disciplines and
creates an output that involves periodic plans, constraints plan, resource plan, etc. This
seemingly is built on a value adding perspective, where every activity ideally is seen to
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 59

contribute to more value (Goldkuhl and Lind, 2008). All information from
multi-disciplines is organised and processed by IPWP and eventually become an
integrated plan to lead the execution in offshore fields (see Figure 5).
A typical cycle of IP processes in O&G industry, starts from department plans and
ends up with work execution and reporting. Information about selected activities that
need to be finished in each departmental plans of next period are integrated into IP
database based on input criteria. Specialists and planners identify potential conflicts
between these activities through the analysis based on constraint factors (i.e., available
material and human resource for performance execution; requirement from time, cost and
quality). Planners, as coordinators here, arrange multi-discipline workshops to evaluate
the frequency and consequences for issues of conflict and solve these conflicts to create a
suitable integrated baseline for satisfying the limits of constraint factors by postpone
some low-priority activities or offering temporary priority for the set of activities. With
the agreement of key specialists and administrators, a field-wide integrated baseline of
plan is created and prepared for execution purpose.
The process described above implies that the IP needs an efficient process design to
concentrate the attention on critical constraint factors and its consequences and
frequencies to help users to arrange their work for avoiding the potential risks and
conflicts (see also Holmstroem and Drejer, 1996). As a functional module of IP, the
effectiveness of IPWP is attributable to some specific issues discussed below:
1 Input criteria: A model to group and standardise inputs from different systems of
multi-disciplines to form a regular set of data input and ensure that inputs can
provide the necessary information for IPWP and final integrated plans. It involves
the information for both what needs to be made available for work planning and how
the content should be presented to users who will use final integrated plan to execute
in offshore or make decision (detailed introduction about input criteria will be found
in the Section 6.4).
2 Roles and responsibility of participants and planners. The prerequisite of a perfect
IPWP is to ensure that the right person is responsible of the right task. RACI4 matrix,
a diagram to describe the roles and responsibilities of various teams or people in
delivering a project or operating a process, is especially useful in clarifying roles and
responsibilities in cross-functional/departmental projects. Planners should
breakdown the process into pieces of small tasks, and offer related person to finish it.
3 IT environment: Integrated work process running is built on the foundation of IT
system, application software, and advanced infrastructure. The information flow,
work schedule, and tools exploration totally relies on the IT environment.
4 Information and data treatment: it decides the rules and methods for information
delivery and treatment. This considers five specific aspects as discussed below:
• On-time: data should be delivered to the right place at right time, especially for
updating.
• Tool: The input data needs migration/standardisation from original type into
regular type, which need some tools to implement.
• Security: A classification of access authority of IP system should be
implemented for information security.
60 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

• Update: In the IP process, new information should be updated on time relying

on the automatic planning system.
• Quality: Planners should be aware of loss or reformatting of data when
transferred from any information system to the IP system or during irregular
system upgrade. Planners must set some checkpoints to ensure the quality of
input information to avoid wrong or poor quality data, which can lead to serious
planning error.

6.4 Input criteria

Input criteria is a method to standardise the data input from different data systems of
different disciplines and provide the necessary data for IPWP and final integrated plans.
It must include various parameters and information that are needed to prepare integrated
plans, and other related information that is necessary for preparation of implementation
of IPWP.

Figure 6 Demand for input criteria (see online version for colours)

Input
Criteira Integrated work process

For information necessary to present in plans, in the initial step of IPWP, the emphasis is
mainly on medium-term plan and short-term plans. Here the type of input criteria
demanded is limited in terms of production, maintenance and project scope. Following
the improvement in long-term plans, some business information such as budget, may also
be taken into input criteria. Furthermore, for continuous running of IPWP, some specific
constraints that have some impact as major parameters of priority evaluation of activities
are also involved in input criteria.
The basic input criteria should include:

• basic information for activities (i.e., identification; code; title/description; start/finish

date; working hour for each activity)

• information about short-term planning (i.e., code for operation/shut down; calendar
type)

• information about medium-term planning (i.e., material status; special tools for data
transformation; deck space; logistical shipping)
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 61

• information about long-term planning (i.e., budget for each activities; weather;
influence by season; required duration of activities related to major projects)

• information about constraints (i.e., key equipment utilisation plan, material plan,
weather, etc.).

6.5 Conflicts resolution

In the traditional planning process, there is no common priority-based principle for the
integration of plans between multiple disciplines. Each discipline emphasises inner
priority treating their own job packages as the most urgent with high priority number, and
thus allocate resources for immediate execution in offshore. This often confuses the work
scheduling decisions of the planning team, and uses a great deal of time for
argumentation and resolution during planning workshops. This forces the IP team
considerably to develop a common priority principle/tool for fair assessment of all
activities provided by separate disciplines to the IP database.
As a part of the criteria for common priority assessment, there are some factors that is
taken into specific consideration;
• Cost/budget: The cost will not only be the cost of activity, but also consequence of
potential delay.
• Production loss: the cost when the activity is not undertaken.
• Value gained: The value of non-working time reduction when the activity is
cancelled.
• Asset consumption: The cost of risk or damage to assets.
• HSE (health, safety, environment): the level of influence of the activity on the safety,
health, and external environment.
Based on such specific considerations, a common priority matrix is designed under the
guidance of experienced IP experts. Furthermore, if it is possible, IP team may create an
automatic priority tool for better managing the decisions related to activity priority, and
thus to improve the activity handling speed during IP process.

6.6 Roles and responsibility

Roles and responsibility is one of the important issues for IP team members that makes
the organisational structure of the IP process more visible. It also helps clarifying the
specific activities when temporary participants are involved (Wright and Spaven, 1999).
Compared with traditional discipline-based organisational structure, the new
IP-based work group constitutes participants from multi-disciplines, who are the key
persons involved in work coordination and management tasks in respective
department/disciplines (see Figure 7). Integrated planners organise these participants with
strong project matrix management (Mehrmann, 2007). The planning manager is primarily
responsible for this task and to recruit necessary human resources from multiple
disciplines to perform the planning tasks.
62 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

In this setting, the leader of IP team should concentrate on the analysis of an

organisation’s opportunities and risks in its environment (Carter, 2005), and take the
responsibility to communicate with the senior managers of disciplines to ensure that the
ad-hoc problems in IP process are fairly addressed. IP planners also appear to have taken
responsibility to clarify the organisation breakdown structure (OBS), to coordinate the
competency of each participant to satisfy requirements, and even to train new
recruits/participants in preparation for further IP development. The OBS in this regard
gives the specified roles and responsibility of participants in the IP process, which gives a
functional orientation of the duties of the IP team.
In order to concretesise the conditions of IPWP, goals and objectives are set for
IP planners to provide an efficient basis for the IP development process. IP planners
document the cooperation type within IP team that for instance involves:
coordinator’s authority in workshop; details of responsibility in each IP phase;
authority and priority of managers/directors related to IP work. Such reports can also
include description of the level of cooperation with core IP staff, e.g., time controller,
material coordinator, budget controller, technical engineer, and process engineer, etc. On
the other hand, the cultural influence based on multi-disciplines’ work environment is
also considered by planners, which often is cited as a big challenge, in the work of the IP
team.

Figure 7 Roles and responsibility specification related to IP process (see online version
for colours)

Responsibility of leader

Emergency & Risk Disciplines / Partners

Communication net

Monitoring
Leadership

RACI
Integrated work process

Cooperation

Culture influence

OBS Competency Training

Project Team

6.7 Constraints

Constraints are certain conditions or environments that limit or restrict the ability to plan
and execute work. Based on IPWP, it involves unavoidable environment factors (i.e.,
production break down by reason of storm); some infrastructure competency that
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 63

invaluable or hard to change (i.e., narrow platform warehouse with huge amount of
material; platform accommodation); organisation of human resource; and technology that
difficult to reach).

• Unavoidable environmental factors: the planned work tasks that are expected to be
implemented can be influenced by some unavoidable environmental reasons. For
instance: heavy storms and winds, that makes logistics or work execution process
difficult, high waves that prevents access to bulk materials and logistics.

• Infrastructure, capacity and space constraints: the execution of planned work tasks
need to utilise/occupy some infrastructures (e.g., cranes) and operational human
resources on site. Constraints are also introduced by space limitations in the facility
for bulk material required and limited accommodation capacity. Furthermore, some
additional constraints can also be introduced by tied-up logistics resources.

• Organisation of human resource: for some maintenance jobs, there may be some
needs for specialists from external business partners (e.g., condition assessment of
critical equipment, due to an unknown reason). The unavailability of such experts on
demand can delay the execution of planned work.

• Technology that is difficult to reach: In IPWP, efficient planning and execution

process will be supported by various software and communication systems. The
effectiveness of process is decided by the degree of interface between systems and
compatibility for data transfer. For instance, in the process of information delivery
from different disciplines to central IP group, technological troubles may prevent
data transfer on-time and to the quality required.

There are various such constraints that affect the IPWP process. Through the analysis
based on constraints, planners can try to avoid unnecessary conflicts between work tasks
and could modify the priorities for the volume of tasks to resolve the conflicts based on
the severity of the constraints. For an existing IPWP, there is a three-fold criterion that
could be used to evaluate current constraints level:

• Organise an independent database to control and monitor constraints data.

• Suitable retained time or resource for constraints. For each activity, planners must
retain some time and resource for potential delays/unforeseen events.

• Different treatments for static constraints and dynamic constraints.

Static constraints are some constraints that do not tend to change so much over time
(i.e., beds number in offshore, warehouse, persons allowed to work in some special
areas, etc.). A real-time index tool should be installed to support decision-making in
the conflict solving workshop.
Dynamic constraints are constraints that change more frequently that need more
responsive process and historical data to analyse the trend and the possibility to
occur (i.e., weather condition, seasonal influence, services by special experts, etc.). A
good IP group should focus on the historical data, frequency, and consequences of
these constraints, and reflect it in final integrated plan.
64 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

6.8 Monitoring the progress through a measurement system

The objective of the measurement system is to monitor the progress of IP performances
for reflecting critical success factors of an IPWP and then to evaluate and optimise the
current work process. Such a measurement system needs to have a set of KPIs, and
related monitoring and communication tools/infrastructures for implementation of KPIs.
The function of KPIs is to reflect critical success factors of an IPWP, and investigate
simultaneously the actual effects of final integrated plan in execution (Reh, 1997).
Figure 8 gives an overview of KPIs installation in IPWP. Basically, there are two
kinds of KPIs need to be installed:
• KPIs of efficiency monitoring for IPWP
• KPIs for execution of plans.

Figure 8 Basic KPIs installation in IPWP (see online version for colours)

KPIs of efficiency monitoring for IPWP tracks how better the performance of the IPWP
is. This can include, i.e.:
• KPIs related to data/information flow on time, quantity, and demand (i.e., KPI of
input data compliance). IPWP is a multi-disciplines’ cooperation. Any
delay/insufficient of data delivery will postpone the overall schedule and reduce the
effects of conflict solving workshop.
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 65

• KPI related to stability of integrated plan. IPWP is a development process. Planners

will optimise it generally to ensure the final integrated plan is relatively stable. Any
considerable change will influence the execution in offshore, and even loose the
confidence levels of final users of work plans.
On the other hand, in the execution phase of planed work, it is inevitable to have some
deviations during actual execution in offshore in comparison to planned baseline in
onshore. Such deviations can occur due to various variable conditions and work
situations. For example, it can be influenced by accidents, unforeseen constraint factors,
offshore crew’s attitude, and even misunderstandings. Facing this challenge, O&G
producers normally use three kinds of KPIs to evaluate the efficiency of plan execution:
• Plan attainment: planned working hours compare with actual working hours for
tasks we arranged.
• Planned utilisation: planned working hours compare with available working hours in
offshore platform.
• Actual utilisation: actual working hours for tasks compare with available working
time in offshore platform.
If a deviation showed by a KPI is not as good as respected, a reason-based analysis
workshop is arranged for investigating the reason for errors and deviations, and IP
planners could optimise current IPWP to get a better integrated plan.
Sometimes, the reason of deviation does not come from IPWP and IP planners. In
execution, the engineers in offshore platforms may have different perceptions of activity
priorities that may be in misalignment with onshore specialists. The jobs from IPWP can
influence the burdens on offshore engineers, and thus can easily lead to simplification or
negligence of IP based work. This can easily influence the veracity of inputs and create
errors of IP. That requires IP planners to arrange better communication method or
training to help the offshore technicians and engineers to better understand the value of IP
and thus ensure efficient running of IP.

6.9 IT system and tools

Obviously, applications and the final realisation of IPWP depend on a highly efficient IT
setup for data handling and plan delivery. In general, the utilisation of advanced IT
infrastructure, and information and communication technology (ICT) provide a great
opportunity for work management. This is particularly the case for IP process, to improve
the effectiveness and efficiency of planning process, which in turn improve the stability
and reliability of final plans. As noted by Holmstroem and Drejer (1996), IT system need
to support all steps of planning process and offer related tools for critical interface (i.e.,
the interface between databases) for information delivery. Moreover, it must also satisfy
the requirements for integrated planers and systems users.
In IP processes, information about maintenance plans, logistical plans, work orders
are normally saved in the SAP system. In addition, the same is used for application of
data integration, migration, cleanliness, and standardisation, etc. How to realise data
delivery from different software is always a concern for the IP team. On the other hand,
an efficient planning process is based on the authentic, high-quality information, although
it comes from separate sources. However, with the huge amount of data delivery,
66 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

normally, there are not enough planners to manually check/monitor the quality of data.
There is a clear need for the IT group to reorganise/create some tools tied to the original
IT system to take over some of the tasks. For instance, auto prioritising and scheduling
activities following pre-defined set of rules, can release planners to the key planning
tasks; e.g., a well designed online accommodation tool that can help engineers to find out
available bed space in offshore.
From the users’ view point, the major functionality expected of IT systems of IP, is
the ability to track, search, and monitor the work schedules that are related to their own
job profiles. If a friendly information web-based interface could be established with
rational leverages, linkages, references and charts referring to different requirements,
process efficiencies can be significantly improved as information sharing goes beyond
‘need to know basis.’
Furthermore by nature, IP is much more than a simple and linear design of plans and
schedules. All departmental plans, along with some temporary projects, are concentrated
into a complex mix of information. This involves many kinds of inter-relationships that
are difficult to fully understand and have a precise overview of. This raises the
requirement for an IT based IP management tool. The expectation here is that the IT
system provides a movable structure for work portfolio taking into account the variable
nature of critical dimensions of the IP process.

7 Conclusions

Planning within the O&G industry is a huge task with considerable complexities. Any
delays or errors in components or steps in planning process may induce chain-reactions in
the production process. How to organise multi-disciplines’ performance and rearrange it
to reflect real planning requirement in practise, has become one of the major challenge
for each O&G producer. IP, a novel method to optimise traditional decentralised plans
into an integrated plan, has been focused as a major target in recent few years in North
Sea. This has already shown evidence of major benefits from its development. However,
current IP planning process is still at the development phase, and hence cannot
completely ensure a standard and a well-accepted real-time implementation. That forces
companies to identify the mechanisms of IP process to work with, and thus push it into a
higher level within the offshore-onshore organisation.
This paper elaborated a framework for IP based on an industrial case study. It
provides an insight into the critical elements of IP process adopted in offshore O&G
production environment. As highlighted in the article, the whole IP process contains eight
such critical elements, namely steering model, IPWP, input criteria, conflicts resolution,
roles and responsibility, constraints, monitoring measurement and IT system. IP planners
have a major challenge in establishing this configuration, and work through it for
continuous improvement of planning practise within the organisation. Different business
and production environments may have different requirement for IP depending on
complexities and various influence factors. Therefore, there is also a need for further
studies to compare how IP process is realised under different business conditions.
 Framework and systematic functional criteria for IWP in complex assets 67

References
Askerdal, O., Gafvert, M., Hilter, M. and Suri, N. (2003) ‘Analyzing the impact of data errors in
safety-critical control systems’, Dependable Computing, Vol. 86, No. 12, pp.2623–2633.
Bawden, D. (2004) ‘Documentation in an information society’, Journal of Documentation, Vol. 60,
No. 2, pp.107–108.
Ben-Daya, M. and Duffuaa, S.O. (1995) ‘Maintenance and quality: the missing link’, Journal of
Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 1, No. 1, pp.20–26.
Carter, C.R. (2005) ‘Purchasing social responsibility and firm performance: the key mediating
roles of organizational learning and supplier performance’, International Journal of Physical
Distribution & Logistics Management, Vol. 35, No. 3, pp.177–194.
Energy Information Administration (EIA) (2008) New EIA Energy Outlook Projects Flat Oil
Consumption to 2030, Slower Growth in Energy Use and Carbon Dioxide Emissions and
Reduced Import Dependence, available at http://www.eia.doe.gov (accessed on 25 September
2008).
Fletcher, S. (2009) ‘Market watch: crude price slips lower, ending rally’, Oil & Gas Journal,
Vol. 107, No. 4, available at http://www.ogj.com/.
Goldkuhl, G. and Lind, M. (2008) ‘Coordination and transformation in business processes: towards
an integrated view’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 14, No. 6, pp.761–777.
Hollingum, J. (1986) ‘Oil and gas industry looks to space’, Sensor Review, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp.69–73.
Holmstroem, J. and Drejer, A. (1996) ‘Re-engineering in sales and distribution – creating a flexible
and integrated operation’, Business Process Management Journal, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp.23–38.
Horton, G. and Dedigama, T. (2006) ‘Drilling and petroleum engineering program and project
management at Santos Ltd.’, SPE Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conference and Exhibition,
Adelaide, Australia, 11–13 September.
International Monetary Fund (IMF) (2008) World Economic Outlook October 2008, available at
http://www.imf.org (accessed on 8 February 2009).
Jacka, M. and Keller, P. (2009) Business Process Mapping: Improving Customer Satisfaction,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey.
Jahansoozi, J. (2006) ‘Organization-stakeholder relationships: exploring trust and transparency’,
Journal of Management Development, Vol. 25, No. 10, pp.942–955.
Johansson, P. (2008) ‘Implementing stakeholder management: a case study at a micro-enterprise’,
Measuring Business Excellence, Vol. 12, No. 3, pp.33–41.
Kayacan, M.C. and Celik, S.A. (2003) ‘Process planning system for prismatic parts’, Integrated
Manufacturing Systems, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp.75–86.
Kotorov, R. and Hsu, E. (2001) ‘A model for enterprise portal management’, Journal of Knowledge
Management, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp.86–93.
Kutucuoglu, K.Y., Hamali, J., Irani, Z. and Sharp, J.M. (2001) ‘A framework for managing
maintenance using performance measurement systems’, International Journal of Operations
& Production Management, Vol. 21, Nos. 1/2, pp.173–195.
Liyanage, J.P. (2007) ‘Integrated eOperations-eMaintenance: applications in North Sea offshore
asset’, in P. Murthy and K. Kobbacy (Eds.): Complex Systems Maintenance Handbook,
Springer.
Liyanage, J.P. and Langeland, T. (2009) ‘Smart assets through digital capabilities’, Information
Science and Technology, 2nd ed., Mehdi Khosrow-Pour, Information Resources Management
Association, USA.
Mearns, K. and Flin, R. (1995) ‘Risk perception and attitudes to safety by personnel in the offshore
oil and gas industry: a review’, Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, Vol. 8,
No. 5, pp.173–195.
Mehrmann, J. (2007) Matrix Management, available at http://www.pmhut.com (accessed on
11 September 2008).
68 Y. Bai and J.P. Liyanage

Oke, S.A., Charle-Owaba, J.A.O. and Omogoroye, O.O. (2006) ‘A fuzzy safety control framework
for oil platforms’, International Journal of Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 23, No. 5,
pp.564–582.
Oljeinidustriens Landsforening (OLF) / Norwegian Oil Industry Association (2005) Integrated
Work Processes: Future Work Processes on the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS), available
at http://www.olf.no (accessed on 28 December 2005).
Ormerod, L., Sardoff, H., Wllkinson, J., Erlendson, B., Cox, B. and Stephenson, G. (2007)
‘Real-time field surveillance and well services management in a large mature onshore field:
case study’, SPE Production & Operations, Vol. 22, No. 4.
Piggin, R.S.H. (2007) ‘Developments in real-time control with EtherNet/IP’, Assembly Automation,
Vol. 27, No. 2, pp.109–117.
Reh, F.G. (1997) How an Organization Defines and Measures Progress toward Its Goals, available
at http://management.about.com (accessed on 18 September 2008).
Simon, K. (2009) SIPOC Diagram, available at http://www.isixsigma.com (accessed on 5 October
2008).
Van de Water, H. (1999) ‘A maintenance model for quality management’, International Journal of
Quality & Reliability Management, Vol. 17, No. 7, pp.756–770.
Wright, C. and Spaven, M. (1999) ‘Who represents whom?: The consequences of the exclusion of
unions from the safety representation system in the UK offshore oil and gas industry’,
Employee Relations, Vol. 21, No. 1, pp.45–62.
Yam, R.C.M., Tse, P., Ling, L. and Fung, F. (2000) ‘Enhancement of maintenance management
through benchmarking’, Journal of Quality in Maintenance Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 4,
pp.224–240.

Notes
1 Weekly plan attainment: the actual working hours of tasks in the integrated plan compare
with planned working hours. It is a KPI to show the finishing rate of planned task per week.
2 SIPOC: A SIPOC diagram is a tool used by a team to identify all relevant elements of a
process improvement project before work begins. SIPOC involves suppliers, input, process,
output, and customer (Simon, 2009).
3 MCRS: Management control and reporting systems, A MCRS matrix diagram is a tool
used by a IP team to identify all phases and relevant R&R, resource and reports requirement.
4 R(esponsible) – Who is responsible for actually doing it? A(ccountable) – Who has authority
to approve or disapprove it? C(onsulted) – Who has needed input about the task? I(nformed,
kept) – Who needs to be kept informed about the task? (Jacka and Keller, 2009).