| dc.description.abstract | For Statoil to achieve their goal of continuous production and delivery of oil and gas from the Norwegian Continental Shelf, they are dependent on realising projects on smaller to medium sized fields that until now have been unprofitable. To achieve this goal, Statoil initialized a fast track portfolio which strategy is to make use of synergies from earlier projects, and to standardize deliverables from frame agreements with contractors, and by doing so reduce execution time, and realize cost savings in project development.
One of the key elements in standardizing deliverables is that Statoil can reduce time spent on reviewing documents from contractors. In securing that the fast track portfolio has the desired effect on resources spent on contractor follow up, document control performed an analysis of the amount of documents reviewed in fast track projects versus other project portfolios. Findings from these analysis revealed that the percentages of documents reviewed in fast track projects where higher than in any other project portfolio, and that there are great deviations in the amount of documents in for review in quite similar projects, and within the same frame agreements. Results from this analysis were in large part the basis for this master thesis. Statoil wants to further investigate why these deviations occur, and if there will be advantageous to implement some guidelines to improve the review process, and make it more streamlined and consistent.
This thesis asks why these deviations occur, and focuses on identifying areas where improvement measures can be implemented. Focus has been given to three fast track projects currently in the execution phase, and by conducting quantitative data analyses in combination with qualitative interviews of key personnel in the fast track portfolio, this study has highlighted several areas where improvements could be implemented.
Key findings in this thesis in no specific order:
1) Alignment of Statoil and contractor’s philosophy behind the risk based follow up strategy.
2)Better communication between document management and engineering disciplines.
3) Better communication between projects and disciplines.
4)Better overview over documents in for review.
5) Implementing criticality levels for documents in for review.
6) Improved experience transfer between projects and employees.
7) Implementing a system for storing documents and comments from earlier projects.
Selecting documents to review is a highly qualitative process that mainly depends on the human factor and each engineer’s experience and risk averseness. One of the main findings in this study is that lack of experience transfer and misconceptions of the risk based follow up strategy generates a high amount of documents for review. Communication between projects, contractor and disciplines should be systemised to better take advantage of synergies and earlier experiences. Aspects regarding the system used to administrate the review process are also highlighted in this thesis. Especially how the interface facilitates a risk based evaluation of documents in for review. | no_NO |
