Monthly Archives: June 2016

To Build Fit Enterprise Solutions, Be Physical …

The British and the Americans speak the same language. But, say “I have a flat” to a British, and it means something completely different than said to an American. The former would congratulate you, and the latter would feel sorry for you. Flat in the UK means an apartment. Flat in Houston means a flat tire. The same 4 words, arranged in the exact same way, in what is ostensibly the same language, and yet either speaker would confuse their audience, if the audiences were transposed.

It is the same thing in business – if you cross different corporate cultures or even inter-organizational boundaries, industry terminology might sound the same but mean very different things. Sometimes we think we are communicating, but we are not.

Why is this a problem? Because it is not possible to build an enterprise data management solution to serve all departments without addressing variations in expectations for the same word. Especially if the term in question is one that defines your organization’s values and activities.

“Sometimes we think we are communicating, but we are not”

In the corporate world of Energy E&P, the word “completion” means different things to the different departments. If you mention a “Completion” to a Landman, he will assume you are referring to the subsurface horizon for his leases (it is more complex than this, but for the sake of this argument we need not dive into details). If a “Completion” is referenced to a Production Engineer, she immediately thinks of the intersection of a wellbore and a reservoir horizon. To a Completion Engineer, the same term means the process of completing a well after the well has reached final depth.

As organizations’ data management practice become more matured, they start to make their way towards the right of the EIM MM (Enterprise Information Management Maturity Model). Centralized solutions such as Master Data Management (MDM) are important and are designed to serve ALL departments to break as many silos as possible.

Naturally, to create a centralized solution that addresses needs across the enterprise, you must first reach consensus on how to build that solution. The solution must ensure that the data is NOT LOST, NOT OVERWRITTEN and is FULLY CAPTURED and useful to EVERYONE. What is the best way to reach consensus without the risk of losing data?

Get Physical

To answer the above question, many agree that information systems need to be built based on the physical reality to gather granular data …

By basing your data on the physical world and capture granular data as practically possible, you not only make it possible to capture all related information but also possible to report it in any combination of grouping and queries. See the example in figure 1.

Focus on Enterprise Needs and Departmental needs will follow…

I have seen systems that ignore wellbore data yet store only completions per well. At other clients, I have seen systems that take short cuts by storing wells, wellbore and wellbore completion data in one line (this necessitates overwriting old completion data with new everytime there is a change), these are “fit-for-purpose” systems.  These are not enterprise level solutions, but rather serve departmental needs.

Too often systems are designed for the need of one group/department/purpose rather than for the need of the company as a whole. However, if the needs of the whole are defined and understood, both company and groups will have what they need and then some.

Let’s look at an example to clarify this position:

Figure 1 Multi lateral well

Figure 1 Multi lateral well

In Figure 1 above, how would you store the data for the well in your organization or your department? Would you define the data captured as one well, three bores, and three completions? Or maybe two completions? One?
Depending on your department or organizational definitions, any of the above definitions could be fit-for-purpose correct. Accounting systems might keep track of ONLY one completion if it made Payroll and Tax sense. While Land may only keep track of 2 completions if the bores are in two zones. An engineer would track three completions and will be specific to one completion per wellbore. The regulatory department may want you to report something entirely different.
How do we decide the number of completions so that the information is captured accurately, yet remains useful to a Landman, Accountant, Engineer, and Geoscientist? Build based on the physical reality and stay granular.
In Figure 1, physically speaking, we see one well with three paths (3 wellbores). Each bore has its own configuration that open to the reservoir (completions). In total, this well has three different ‘Completions’,  one ‘Completion’ for each of the horizontal bores.
Accounting can query how many different cost centers the well has, and depending on the production (and other complex rules) the answer could be three but it could be 1.  Depending on the lease agreement, Landman could get a result of one or 3 completions. An engineer can also easily query and graph this data to find the three pathways, and determine each completion job per wellbore.
While it could be argued that data needs to be presented differently to each department, the underlying source data must reflect the physical truth. After all, we cannot control what people call things and certainly cannot change the lingo.

Juicy Data Aligned


Around the corner from my house is a local shop selling an excellent assortment of fresh vegetable and fruit juices. Having tried their product, I was hooked, and thought it would be a good addition to my diet on a daily basis. But I knew with my schedule that unless I made a financial commitment, and paid ahead of time, I would simply forget to return on a regular basis.  For this reason, I broached the subject of a subscription with the vendor. If the juice was already paid for, and all I had to do was drop in and pick it up, I’d save time, and have incentive to stop by (or waste money).

However, the owner of the shop did not have a subscription model, and had no set process for handling one. But as any great business person does when dealing with a potential long term loyal customer, the owner accommodated my proposition, and simply wrote the subscription terms on a piece of paper (my name, total number of juices owed and date of first purchase), and communicated the arrangement with her staff. This piece of paper, was tacked to the wall behind the counter. I could now walk in at any time, and ask for my juice. Yess!

Of course, this wasn’t a perfect system, but it aligned with business needs (more repeat business), and worked without fail, until, of course, it eventually failed. On my second to last visit, the clerk behind the counter could not find the paper. Whether or not I got the juice owed to me that day is irrelevant to the topic at hand…the business response, however, is not.

When I went in today, they had a bigger piece of paper, with a fluorescent tag on it and large fonts. More importantly, they had also added another data point, labeled ‘REMAINING DRINKS’. This simple addition to their data and slight change to the process made it easier and faster for the business to serve a client. Previously, the salesperson would have to count the number of drinks I had had to date, add the current order, then deduct from the total subscription. But now, at a glance a salesperson can tell if I have remaining drinks or not, and as you can imagine deducting the 2 juices I picked up today from the twelve remaining is far simpler. Not to mention the data and process adjustment, helped them avoid liability, and improved their margins (more time to serve other customers). To me, this is a perfect example of aligning data solutions to business needs.

There are several parallels in the above analogy to our business, the oil and gas industry, albeit with a great deal more complexity. The data needs of our petro professionals, land, geoscience and engineering have been proven to translate directly into financial gains, but are we doing enough listening to what the real needs of the business are? Reference our blog on Better Capital Allocation With A Rear-View Mirror – Look Back for an example on what it takes to align data to corporate needs.

There is real value to harvest inside an individual organization when data strategies are elevated to higher standards. Like the juice shop, oil and gas can reap benefits from improved data handling in terms of response time, reduction in overhead, and client (stakeholder) satisfaction, but on a far larger scale.  If the juice shop had not adapted their methodology in response to their failure of process (even if it wasn’t hugely likely to reoccur) the customer perception might be that they didn’t care to provide better service. Instead, they might just get unofficial advertising from readers asking where I get my juice. I’d suggest that the oil and gas industry could benefit from similar data-handling improvements. Most companies today align their data management strategies to departmental and functional needs.  Unless the data is also aligned to the corporate goals many companies will continue to leave money on the table.