pinedale production allocation process n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Pinedale Production Allocation Process PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Pinedale Production Allocation Process

Pinedale Production Allocation Process

127 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Pinedale Production Allocation Process

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Pinedale Production Allocation Process Finding of the APM Introduction After Action Review Location: Live Meeting Date: 20th April 2009 Pinedale Prod Data Oct 17 v0_1.ppt

  2. Key Learning’s 1 • Not enough engagement with stakeholders and users • The Business did not fully understand what would be delivered and its impact. • Need a dedicated business PM, business and IT staff to work the project. • Need to use the Project Delivery Framework as a tool to help manage the project and not as a reporting and status aid. • Insufficient change management effort early in the project.

  3. Key Learning’s 2 • Failed to adequately address issues that arose. • Agree who owns the project (Business or IT) • Ensure clear roles and responsibilities. • Ensure ownership of processes, issues etc are assigned • Project estimate must be based on a detailed statement of the actual business requirements.

  4. Background • In early 2008, it was recognized that the then current process of carrying out the monthly allocation using a spreadsheet based system was unsustainable. • The decision was made to migrate the allocation process from spreadsheets and utilize the APM module in the current Hydrocarbon Allocation system P2ES. • The project to implement an APM based allocation process commenced mid year 2008. • The APM based allocation process became active as a live application in December 2008. • April 2009 Move to a daily surveillance process for allocation • April 2009 This AAR

  5. Miscellaneous observation • The development of the user requirements did not go through a robust review, • The complexity of “mid-day” changes of well switching were underestimated or not well understood by all parties. This doubled the length of the project and was not identified up front nor was the difficulty of executing understood • Weighted Working Interest – was targeted as work to be undertaken towards the end of the project and as a result of stretched resources did not get the focus. In addition changes in the structure of the business (removal of SRMP) has also delayed delivery. • constraint around well test durations being embedded into the application and thus limiting flexibility to move to variable period well test. • Did not properly manage the issues being raised. Use should have been made of a risk register and a managed issue process to ensure that issues raised during development through embedment were and are addressed • Needed to have a full data map developed • Projects like this need to having a tool like “More 4 Apps” to assist system configuration.

  6. Participants • Tony Breitbach • Scott Blanchard • Sean Phung • Ian Langmead • Karen Yagel • Gary Leist • Paula Dalton • Mark Davis • Ava Lockett • Trechelle Shotwell • Jessica Johnson • Charlene Pinelli • John Brewer • Greg Ehman • Jeremiah Attanasio • James Duran