Process, Power and Marine Division - intergraph.com · • SPO Project Execution ... – Information Management Plan ... FMC (USP) GJO FMC Vega (VEG) D&C GJØA (DCP) ABB (UCP) SAI

Process, Power and Marine Division Reducing Costs & Risks for Owner Operators throughout the Plant Lifecycle

Adrian Park, Global Technical Director, Owner Operator Solutions Pat Casey, Program Manager, Shell International E&P BV Heidi Wevik, Information Manager, Gjøa Development, StatoilHydro

Preconfigured Industry Solutions – Substantial Client Benefit – •  Template Solutions

–  60-80% starting point –  Avoids start with “empty box” –  Work process centric

documentation for end-users –  Very fast work process gap

analysis •  Repeat success stories and

promote “industry best practices” •  Leverage “lessons learned” and

de-risk implementations •  Shorten implementations and

accelerate ROI •  Reduce implementation efforts/

costs and increase ROI

© 2009. Intergraph Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Documentation

Configuration Content

60-80% fit to most Customer needs

2

SP Enterprise for Owner Operators – Selected O&M Benefits –


•  Capture & verify plant asset data •  Maintain consistent plant

documentation •  Provide a single point of access to

plant data •  Reduce MRO inventories •  Reduce time needed to be in the plant •  Develop smarter maintenance and

inspection plans •  Avoid maintenance/construction

errors •  Manage change on the operating

plant •  Demonstrable compliance •  Faster and better decision support •  Remove dependence on individuals •  Reduce risk of plant incidents

Reduce OPEX and plant downtime, improve safety

3

SP Enterprise for Owner Operators – Selected Project Benefits –


•  Better and faster and turnaround planning

•  Improved management of project changes and contractor interfaces

•  Responding to contractor queries in a timely manner

•  Gather operations & maintenance relevant design details earlier

•  Capture & verify the quality of plant documentation

•  Enable collaboration through-out the project value chain

•  Provide a single, central source of truth

Reduce CAPEX and shorten project schedule

4

SP Enterprise for Owner Operators – Solution Overview –


•  SPO VTL –  Data validation, transformation & loading

•  SPO Core –  Engineering Data Portal –  Plant / Work Breakdown Structures –  Document Management & Control –  Transmittal management –  Master Tag Registry –  Piping Isometric Engineering –  Conceptual Engineering

•  SPO Operating Plant –  O&M Browser –  Plant Change Management –  CMMS Integration

•  SPO Project Execution –  Project Change Management –  Technical / Site Queries –  Interface Management –  Non-conformity Management

5

SPO – Overview

Integrated O/O Environment

ERP (SAP, Maximo, Ventyx, Oracle EAM)

DCS/ Automation

Reliability

Safety Content Management

Common Web Portal

Project Data Exchange


Engineering Dynamics

6

Survey question for audience

•  How important is it for an OO to include life-cycle management of the virtual plant engineering asset in their corporate IT strategy? a)  Imperative b)  Somewhat important c)  Neither important nor unimportant d)  Not very important e)  Don’t know

© 2009. Intergraph Corporation. All Rights Reserved. 7

Reducing risk and costs related to handovers of data through the plant asset life-cycle

Pat Casey, Program Manager, Shell International E&P BV


The Challenge - Shell

•  Problematic Information Handover during asset lifecycle: –  FEED→Detailed Design –  Detailed Design→Construction

(including numerous sub-contractors) –  Construction→Commissioning –  Operations, Maintenance,

Enhancements etc. –  Decommissioning

•  The Solution –  Information Management Plan

covering the entire Asset lifecycle –  Detailed specification of engineering

data requirements –  Generally available commercial tools,

acceptable to a wide range of suppliers, which facilitates the efficient handover of quality controlled engineering information


Significant Annual CAPEX in the ten’s of billions to implement new assets

•  $1 billion plant from operation to start has costs of $10-20M +1 year to verify and load operations systems

•  Shell has taken several measures to avoid these costs and further measures to reduce costs and time

•  Hundreds of turnaround projects and thousands of modifications

•  For significant assets, this adds up to a reduced OPEX and CAPEX of $20-40M per annum.


Consequences for existing assets

•  Handover requires a thorough knowledge of the engineering data and business processes of the asset, requiring highly competent individuals and scarce resources

•  The hand over of poor quality of data results in: –  Costly physical verification of data

prior to undertaking modifications and revamps

–  Incorrect decisions based on incorrect data, resulting in costly mistakes (e.g. buying incorrect replacement parts and rework)

–  Sub-optimal cost of maintenance


Large off-shore gas development

•  Handover from the development contractor to the operator (Shell) of a field with a CAPEX investment of $1billion+ involves: –  Number of items of

equipment > 150,000 –  Number of documents

>100,000 –  Number of data elements >

2,500,000


Data Validation, Transformation and Loading •  The number of data items and the complexity of the checks

required to ensure adequate verification necessitates the implementation of computerized data validation.

•  Shell have developed an in-house proprietary system for validation, the intention is to replace this with a COTS solution: –  To reduce cost of ownership –  To replace the proprietary tool with a solution that tightly

integrates with an Engineering Data Warehouse (SmartPlant Foundation) and provides end-to-end automation

–  Intergraph’s Validation, Transformation & Loading tool (VTL) is now being user tested in a number of Shell projects

13 © 2009. Intergraph Corporation. All Rights Reserved.

Intergraph’s SPO VTL Provides tools to transform and load data into a Staging Area where it may be validated prior to loading into target systems such as an Engineering Data Warehouse, maintenance system etc. for access by the project and operations

Staging Area

Legacy Systems

Contractors Shell Data Validation Team

QC Reports

Other Target

Systems

SAP EDW

VTL Suppliers

Other Target

Systems

Project Team Operations


VTL Validation Rules

•  Powerful and highly flexible generic rule definition capability including:

–  Syntax Rules (ENS) –  Uniqueness validation –  Relationship cardinality –  Date/Time validation –  Integer validation –  String validation –  PL/SQL and DLL rule definitions for more

complex rules –  Pick-List validation –  Unit of Measure validation –  Mandatory fields –  Cascading errors

•  Rules may be included into Rule Sets that are run against data submissions

•  Rules and rule sets are reusable •  Severity of validation findings may be graded

on rules e.g. as “warnings” and “errors”


VTL Benefits - providing the “certification” of information deliverables

•  Shell communicates requirements for information deliverables in the form of an IM Scope of Work and EIS data standard.

•  Contractors should implement these requirements in their own validation tools to ensure the handover information complies with the IM Scope of Work. In case the EPC also uses VTL, reuse of validation rules might be possible.

•  Shell always validates the received data in their own environment before loading it into the Engineering Data Warehouse for quality assurance reasons.

16

VTL

EPC/ Supplier VTL Rules

Data

Information deliverable With VTL log as certification

VTL

VTL Log

IMSoW EIS VTL Rules

VTL Rules


VTL Benefits - VTL enabling validation through the value chain

17

Supplier PMC/Contractor

VTL

Sub-contractor

IMSoW EIS

VTL

VTL

VTL

VTL

VTL

VTL Rules

VTL Rules

VTL Rules

VTL Rules


VTL Benefits

•  Reduced time and cost of data handover throughout the asset lifecycle

•  Support for the increasingly data centric deliveries from projects •  Improved range, quality, and consistency of validation performed •  Automated end-to-end workflow for managing the loading of data

into the staging area, validation, export and load into target EDW. •  Capability for end-users to define and manage rules •  Tight integration with target SPF/SPO solution including

comparison of data in the staging area with data in the target system to facilitate incremental loading

•  Fully auditable traceability of data submissions, validation performed, results and manual changes in the Staging Area


Survey question for audience

•  On average, how much does poor data quality and inconsistencies in documentation during operations increase the cost of modifications and turnarounds? a)  > 30% b)  20-30% c)  10-20% d)  < 10% e)  Don’t know


SPO Value Propositions – Information Browsing –


Information Browsing – SPO Value Proposition – •  Benefits

–  Faster and better decision making –  Less effort in maintenance &

inspection planning –  Faster incident analysis –  Less dependence on individuals

•  Enabled through –  Fully integrated plant design basis

providing a single-source of information

–  Web portals –  Reduced time to find data &

documents and to answer ad hoc queries

–  Access to most current and most accurate information

–  Everybody having access to the same information


SPO Value Propositions – Project Execution –


SPO Project Execution – Addressing a Major Need –

•  Average budget overruns of 20-30% and delays to start-up

•  Positive correlation between project size and complexity and the size of overruns/delays

•  There is a need for: –  Improved management of key

project execution processes –  Better collaboration between

owners project teams, EPCs and package suppliers


SPO Project Execution – Addressing a Major Need –

SPO Core (Engineering Design Basis)

PROJECT EXECUTION SOLUTION

Areas

Smar

tPla

nt F

ound

atio

n

EPC

Non

- C

onfo

rmiti

es

Tech

nica

l Q

uerie

s

Cha

nge

Man

agem

ent

Inte

rfac

e M

anag

emen

t

Package Supplier

Owner/ Operator


Systems Disciplines Tags Documents

Integration

Benefits of Integrated Project Execution

Heidi Wevik, Information Manager, Gjøa Offshore Development Project


Why focus on Integrated Project Execution (IPE)? •  Large cost overruns in projects •  Difficult to get overview of costs related to

changes (ref. SOX)

•  Difficult to find information on decisions taken –  Who decided what? –  Why? –  When?

•  Difficult to get overview of need for information exchange between the various suppliers

–  To get information from other suppliers at the right time

–  Information exchange / interface ends up on critical line

–  Critical for contractor’s and supplier’s progress –  Delays cost – during the project phases and for

Operation at delayed start-up •  Achieve quality early instead of late in the

project

Change

RRM

Tag, Doc

Interface Change Mgt

TQ/SQ …

26

IPE – Key Principles •  Workflow full traceability / history •  Bi-directional information exchange with Contractor

systems via web services •  Relations between different IPE objects •  Relations between IPE objects and related tags and

documents •  Relations to project plant breakdown structures

(PBS)

27

Integrated Project Execution – IPE

28

The Change Management Process

Change proposal Initiated by e.g. - VOR - TQ - NCR - Non-IPE

- Make the change info available to the project organization. - Attach workflow.

Allow the project to review the proposal prior to starting the detailed evaluation process

Ensure a thorough but efficient evaluation. The basis for concluding the total effect of the change proposal

Decide if change is to be approved, rejected or if further information is needed

Ensure a satisfactory implementation of the approved change

29

Project Management of Change – Management Reporting –

30

The Interface Control Process

•  Identification, planning, execution and follow-up of interfaces on Gjøa shall be undertaken in such a way that at all times interfacing parties are able to progress their work according to plan based on sound and consistent information

•  This shall be done through –  Identification of interfaces –  Planning for delivery of interface items –  Registration of interface items –  Status reporting –  Holding meetings for timely resolution of interface issues

31

Gjøa Interfaces

LMT Aker Solutions (AKG)

Vega

(SEV)

Scandpower

(SCA)

Gjøa oil export pipeline (GPC)

Energiverk Mongstad

(EVM) Gjøa flags pipeline (GPB)

Gjøa gas export pipeline (GPA)

Samsung (HFC)

Semi Marine Inst (MAI)

RAM

SS7 Vega (SEV) Aker Subsea

(UBA)

Acergy (UDB)

NKT (URI)

FMC (USP)

GJO

FMC Vega

(VEG)

D&C GJØA (DCP)

ABB (UCP)

SAI

Technip (TEC)

Technip (TIR)

Transocean (DTR)

OCE

SS7 / Acergy (SAC)

Aibel (UDD)

Aker Subsea (UDC)

Technip (TEN)

NEM

BRO

32

IPE Interface Hierarchy

•  Interface code: Unique identification of internal or external responsible and receiver of information / delivery (parties)

•  Interface Item: Interface issues/points between two parties. Can be StatoilHydro internals, contractors or vendors

•  DIIR: (Discipline Interface Information Requirement): Defined information requirement pr. discipline with need dates, responsibility, etc

Interface Code

Interface Item

DIIR

33

Interface management – progress reporting

34

Summary •  Integrated Project Execution – IPE

–  The IPE processes are here to stay –  Information traceability gives faster, more efficient and SOX

compliant work processes –  Keeps track of costs, schedule and weight impact for changes

  It gives you   Availability of information through

the whole life cycle of the installation

  Good information quality early in he project

  Seamless handover to Operation   High probability of very little carry-

over work

35

– Value Proposition –


Value Proposition

•  Substantial cost and risk reduction through the plant life-cycle is achievable for OOs by:


Source Saving Improved handover and verification of information deliverables from CAPEX projects

1-1.5% CAPEX

Implementation of improved processes and tools for project management of change, interfaces, Technical/Site Queries and Non-conformities

2-6% CAPEX

Implementation of improved data quality reducing the need for plant walkdowns, management of change during operations including data synchronization with CMMS and improved asset integrity and reduced plant incidents and downtime.

Shell $20-40m OPEX/CAPEX pr yr on $ multi-billion assets

$11m+ OPEX annual savings per 1 bill CAPEX investment

Want to know more?

Visit http://www.intergraph.com/ppm/spo.aspx

Contact: [email protected]
