Improving Outcomes for Oil and Gas Projects Through Better Use of Front End Loading and Decision Analysis

David Newman, S. Begg, Matthew Welsh
{"title":"Improving Outcomes for Oil and Gas Projects Through Better Use of Front End Loading and Decision Analysis","authors":"David Newman, S. Begg, Matthew Welsh","doi":"10.2118/192129-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Outcomes for oil and gas projects often fall short of the expectations predicted at project sanction. Appropriate use of Front End Loading (FEL) and Decision Analysis (DA) to achieve high Decision Quality (DQ) should increase the likelihood of achieving better outcomes. However, despite being successful methodologies, research has shown that they are not always applied. The focus of this paper is on how to encourage people to make better use of FEL and DA.\n Previous results from this research program have shown two key reasons why FEL and DA are not used more: an over-reliance on ‘experience’ and judgment for decision-making, rather than the use of structured processes; and projects being ‘schedule-driven’, i.e. meeting target dates being the primary objective. This paper focuses on insights from a survey conducted both to answer questions raised by this previous research and test the likely uptake of methods designed to encourage more effective use of FEL and DA/DQ. It shows that there is strong agreement that good FEL leads to better project outcomes, and that the FEL benchmark score is a good indicator of readiness for project sanction. However, perhaps competing with the desire to complete FEL, is the view (of around 2/3 of respondents) that it is important to drive the schedule in order to prevent ‘overworking’ – continued activity that adds little value. All respondents agreed that it is essential: that the decision maker clarifies the frame, scope and criteria for the decision; and to have regular discussions between the decision maker and the project team to bring alignment. However, responses indicated that these only occur in practice around half of the time. Similarly, formal assessments of DQ are made in less than half of key project decisions.\n Several novel solutions are proposed for increasing the likelihood of better project outcomes by improving the uptake and use of FEL and DA/DQ. These include: just-in-time training on FEL and DA/DQ; basing performance incentives on achieving high DQ and good FEL; and, developing a simple pragmatic assessment of FEL that can be used in-house. These suggestions were all supported by a majority of survey respondents.","PeriodicalId":11240,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Tue, October 23, 2018","volume":"4 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-10-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Tue, October 23, 2018","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2118/192129-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

Outcomes for oil and gas projects often fall short of the expectations predicted at project sanction. Appropriate use of Front End Loading (FEL) and Decision Analysis (DA) to achieve high Decision Quality (DQ) should increase the likelihood of achieving better outcomes. However, despite being successful methodologies, research has shown that they are not always applied. The focus of this paper is on how to encourage people to make better use of FEL and DA. Previous results from this research program have shown two key reasons why FEL and DA are not used more: an over-reliance on ‘experience’ and judgment for decision-making, rather than the use of structured processes; and projects being ‘schedule-driven’, i.e. meeting target dates being the primary objective. This paper focuses on insights from a survey conducted both to answer questions raised by this previous research and test the likely uptake of methods designed to encourage more effective use of FEL and DA/DQ. It shows that there is strong agreement that good FEL leads to better project outcomes, and that the FEL benchmark score is a good indicator of readiness for project sanction. However, perhaps competing with the desire to complete FEL, is the view (of around 2/3 of respondents) that it is important to drive the schedule in order to prevent ‘overworking’ – continued activity that adds little value. All respondents agreed that it is essential: that the decision maker clarifies the frame, scope and criteria for the decision; and to have regular discussions between the decision maker and the project team to bring alignment. However, responses indicated that these only occur in practice around half of the time. Similarly, formal assessments of DQ are made in less than half of key project decisions. Several novel solutions are proposed for increasing the likelihood of better project outcomes by improving the uptake and use of FEL and DA/DQ. These include: just-in-time training on FEL and DA/DQ; basing performance incentives on achieving high DQ and good FEL; and, developing a simple pragmatic assessment of FEL that can be used in-house. These suggestions were all supported by a majority of survey respondents.
通过更好地使用前端加载和决策分析来改善油气项目的成果
石油和天然气项目的结果往往低于项目批准时的预期。适当使用前端加载(FEL)和决策分析(DA)来实现高决策质量(DQ)应该增加获得更好结果的可能性。然而,尽管是成功的方法,研究表明,它们并不总是适用。本文的重点是如何鼓励人们更好地利用FEL和DA。该研究项目之前的结果显示了FEL和DA没有被更多使用的两个关键原因:在决策时过度依赖“经验”和判断,而不是使用结构化过程;项目是“时间表驱动的”,即满足目标日期是主要目标。本文着重于一项调查的见解,该调查既回答了先前研究提出的问题,又测试了旨在鼓励更有效地使用FEL和DA/DQ的方法的可能性。它显示了一个强有力的共识,即好的FEL会导致更好的项目结果,并且FEL基准分数是项目批准准备情况的一个很好的指示器。然而,可能与完成FEL的愿望相竞争的是(大约2/3的受访者)认为推动时间表以防止“过度工作”是很重要的-持续的活动增加了很少的价值。所有答复者都同意,至关重要的是:决策者澄清决策的框架、范围和标准;并在决策者和项目团队之间进行定期讨论,以达成一致。然而,回应表明,这些只发生在实践中大约一半的时间。同样,在不到一半的关键项目决策中进行了DQ的正式评估。本文提出了几种新颖的解决方案,通过改进对FEL和DA/DQ的吸收和使用,来增加获得更好项目结果的可能性。这些包括:FEL和DA/DQ的及时培训;基于实现高DQ和良好FEL的绩效激励;并且,开发一个可以在内部使用的简单实用的FEL评估。这些建议都得到了大多数受访者的支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信