View
374
Download
14
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
1/60
Shell Exploration & Production
Unscheduled
Deferment,ORIP and RCAProcess Guide
Operational ExcellenceDelivering Continuous Performance Improvement
EP 2007-9014
Restricted
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
2/60
Restricted EP 2007-9014
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
Reviewed by: EPT - Surface Production Discipline Leadership Team
Approved by: Global Discipline Head Surface Production (EPT-O-TFPL)
Date of issue: November 2007
ECCN number: Not subject to EAR - No US content
This document is classified as Restricted. Access is allowed to Shell personnel, designated Associate Companies and Contractors
working on Shell projects who have signed a confidentiality agreement with a Shell Group Company. 'Shell Personnel' includes allstaff with a personal contract with a Shell Group Company. Issuance of this document is restricted to staff employed by a Shell
Group Company. Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be disclosed to Non-Shell Personnel without the prior written
consent of the copyright owners.
Copyright 2007 SIEP B.V.
SHELL INTERNATIONAL EXPLORATION AND PRODUCTION B.V., RIJSWIJK
Further electronic copies can be obtained from the Global EP Library, Rijswijk.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
3/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
1
Contents
Foreword ...................................................................................................................................................................3
Business Context .........................................................................................................................................................4
Introduction..............................................................................................................................................................4
Overview of ORIP.....................................................................................................................................................6
ORIP meeting structure ...............................................................................................................................................8
Roles and responsibilities..........................................................................................................................................10
Critical success factors.............................................................................................................................................11
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process...........................................................................................................13
The Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process map...........................................................................................14
1. Identify.............................................................................................................................................................16
1.1 Identify opportunities ......................................................................................................................................18
2. Assess and Rank ...............................................................................................................................................20
2.1 Carry out 5 Whys on an incident.....................................................................................................................21
2.2 Categorise and risk assess ..............................................................................................................................22
2.3 Decide what action to take and allocate resources ..............................................................................................24
3. Select and Analyse............................................................................................................................................25
3.1 Establish RCA Team .......................................................................................................................................26
3.2 Conduct preparation meeting ..........................................................................................................................26
3.3 Analyse the incident.......................................................................................................................................28
3.4 Record root causes and communicate ...............................................................................................................28
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
4/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
2
4. Decide and Act.................................................................................................................................................31
4.1 Develop corrective actions ..............................................................................................................................324.2 Endorse corrective actions at ORIP....................................................................................................................32
4.3 Implement the actions .....................................................................................................................................32
4.4 Review status of actions at ORIP .......................................................................................................................33
5. Analyse and Improve.........................................................................................................................................34
5.1 Monitor effectiveness......................................................................................................................................35
5.2 Identify and implement improvements ................................................................................................................35
5.3 Track and calculate benefits.............................................................................................................................36
Review of the Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Operational Excellence Element ....................................................38
Appendices..............................................................................................................................................................39
Appendix 1 - Typical terms of reference for an ORIP meeting........................................................................................40
Appendix 2 - Roles and responsibilities RCA Facilitator/Team Leader.............................................................................43
Appendix 3 - Competence matrix for RCA ................................................................................................................45
Appendix 4 - 5 Whys RCA guidance.......................................................................................................................46
Appendix 5 - The Apollo process.............................................................................................................................49
Appendix 6 - Generic SAP Z8 Work Process Flow .....................................................................................................52
Glossary of terms......................................................................................................................................................54
Glossary of abbreviations/acronyms...........................................................................................................................55
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
5/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
3
Foreword
Shell EP benchmarks indicate that unscheduled deferment is at
unacceptably high levels across the Group. There is, therefore,
a requirement to address this problem from the Corporate leveldown. Carrying out the activities of the UnscheduledDeferment, Operational Reliability/Integrity improvement Process
(ORIP) and Root Cause Analysis (RCA) elements of Operational
Excellence have been identified as one way of addressing theproblem.
The purpose of this guide is to explain how to manageunwanted incidents, with the aim of reducing unscheduled
deferment and improving and sustaining operational reliability.
This is a wide-ranging process that crosses the disciplines ofMaintenance and Integrity and Surface Production and
interfaces with the HSSE community. It is important to ensure
that all site-specific knowledge is brought to the problem solving
process to ensure its success.
As a result of using the guide, staff will be able to:
explain how the process works
describe which employees will be involved in the process
explain the role each employee has in the process
explain where to get training in how to use the process
explain what to do to implement the process
determine if implementation has been successful
outline some of the practices for conducting RCAs.
Analytical tasks, such as RCA, are often viewed as the
responsibility of qualified technical professionals, e.g.
engineers. However, any attempt to execute an RCA without
the participation of site staff is a missed opportunity and puts atrisk the quality and credibility of the results. Consequently,
given the broad range of disciplines involved in managing
unscheduled deferment and the assurance of operational
reliability, this guide is intended for staff involved in thefollowing activities.
Production Engineering staff involved in first line maintenance
and production operations.
Asset management involved with increasing technical and
operational integrity and reducing the level of risk
Maintenance and operations support staff involved with
Reliability Assessment, Production System Optimisation and
Production Programming.
Whilst the process could be used to address HSSE issues, it is
not the intention of this guide to take precedence overHSSE-related incident investigation procedures. For the
reporting and investigation of all HSSE incidents, refer to
EP 2005-0170 Incident Reporting and Follow-up.
All HSSE and loss of containment incidents are HSSE
reportable. The requirements for notification, analysis andreporting of these types of incident are specified in the HSSE
Standard (Incident Management Process, HSE0002). The
procedures outlined in this standard should be followed for
HSSE and loss of containment incidents. Security incidents arealso excluded from this process guide.
It is also not the intention of this guide to provide detailedinformation about how to conduct facilitated RCA investigations.
This can be sourced through Group Learning and Development
or via the Functional Discipline organisations.
This guide has three parts.
The Business Context contains an introduction, overview of theprocess, ORIP meeting structure, roles and responsibilities and criticalsuccess factors.
The Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process givesdetailed guidance on how to establish, carry out and maintain theprocess. It should be used as a reference guide for those involvedwith the process whether as a member of the ORIP meeting or asa member of an RCA team. Both parts refer to more detailedappendices.
A CD Toolbox located inside the back cover contains tools andtemplates that can be tailored to the requirements of any Asset.They are shown in the introduction of sections 1-5 and arereferenced throughout the guide and shown as
T
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
6/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
4
Business Context
The extent of unscheduled deferment throughout the Group is
large. Figure 1 illustrates its extent and main causes based on
2005 production data.
Deferment is referred to as unscheduled when it is caused byevents that cannot be scheduled, e.g. trips, breakdowns and
interruptions by third parties, poor performance of equipment or
sub-optimum settings.
Full guidance on the coding structure and the appropriate root
cause codes to assign to unscheduled deferment are describedin the Deferment Administration Manual EP 2007-9017.
Unscheduled deferment elimination is a corporate goal. Itrequires the use of a structured process that frequently
incorporates RCA and is fundamental to:
maintaining a safe workplace
minimising deferment
maximising equipment reliability and plant availability
minimising operating cost
ensuring Technical Integrity.
Many of the causes of unscheduled deferment are directly
related to equipment or process system failures. However,
industry experience indicates that in 60-70% of incidents,people-related issues play a significant role.
Improvements are being made through the use of theUnscheduled deferment, ORIP and RCA process as shown in
the examples from BSP in Figure 2. In BSP West, the level of
unscheduled deferment is being sustained below 6% with themonthly average currently below 4% and falling. The reduction
in monthly fluctuations has made off-take scheduling and otherproduct movement activities much easier. At Darat, significant
improvements in the level of unscheduled deferment have beenseen after the introduction of the process.
3rd
parties/customers
Wells
Pipelines/flowlines
Separation/
process
Com
pressors
Others
Safeguardingandcontrol
Pumps
Reservoir
Producedwatersys
tem
Powergeneration
Sub-sea
20
10
Separation/
process
Com
pressors
Wells
Safeguardingandcontrol
3rd
parties/customers
Pipelines/flowlines
Others
Powergeneration
Producedwatersys
tem
Sub-sea
Pumps
Reservoir
1200
800
400
Total gas = 4,500 mln m3Total oil = 94 mln bbls
Figure 1: Unscheduled Deferment 2005
Introduction
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
7/60
Figure 2: Unscheduled Deferment story - BSP
May
-07Jan-0
4
Mar-04
May
-04Jul
-04
Nov-0
4
Jan-05
Mar-05
May
-05Jul
-05
Nov-0
5
Sep-0
4
Sep-0
5
Jan-0
6
Mar-06
May
-06Jul
-06
Sep-0
6
Nov-0
6
Jan-07
Mar-07
18.0%
16.0%
14.0%
12.0%
10.0%
8.0%
6.0%
4.0%
2.0%
0.0%
Unscheduleddeferment trend was
downward evenbefore formal ORIP
Unscheduleddeferment/ORIPimplementation
commenced Jan06
%
ofIPSC
BSP - West
Business Context
EP 20079014 Restricted
5
May
-07Jan-04
Mar-04
May
-04Jul
-04No
v-04Jan-0
5M
ar-05
May-05
Jul-05
Nov-05
Sep-0
4Se
p-05
Jan-0
6M
ar-06
May
-06Jul
-06
Sep-0
6No
v-06Jan
-07M
ar-07
25.0%
20.0%
15.0%
10.0%
5.0%
0.0%
Big story sofar is
TRENDREVERSAL
%
ofIPSC
Commencedimplementationof unscheduled
deferment/ORIP
BSP - Darat
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
8/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
6
Overview of ORIP
ORIP is a formal, structured continuous improvement process.
Inputs to ORIP are the measurements made on plant
performance. These measurements may include defermentdata, KPIs, inspection, audit results and benchmarking results.
Outputs from ORIP are a list of ranked, appropriate, corrective
actions aimed at improving performance especially of plant.
ORIP has five clearly defined stages.
These are:
identify the unwanted incidents/conditions
assess and rank those incidents
select and analyse them to determine the problem decide the best course of action and act.
analyse and improve process effectiveness.
The relationship between the stages is shown in Figure 3 and
described below.
Identify
Unwanted events or conditions are those which have a
significant impact on the business in the areas of:
integrity and reliability
production loss, deferment and downtime
increased expenditure
damage to reputation.
The significance of the impact should be identified on the basisof pre-defined, location-specific thresholds or triggers for eachof these areas. Examples of trigger levels are shown in
Figure 5 on page 18.
Figure 3: The Operational Reliability/Integrity improvement Process (ORIP)
Analyseand improve
Select and analyseAnalysing and problem
solving tools(RCA, tripod B etc)
IdentifyUnwanted events/
conditions
Check thresholds
Assess andrank
Efficiency and
reliability
RAM/Bad actor register
Decide and acton appropriate measures
Comission plant changeMaintenance strategy;
RRM (S-RCM, S-RBI, SIFpro)
Do nothing PMR; SAP PM change
Procedural change Competence development
EIT
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
9/60
Business Context
EP 20079014 Restricted
7
If there are no location-specific thresholds, the initiator should
use the HSE RAM to carry out a preliminary assessment and log
the results in the ORIP register.
Assess and rank
All integrity and reliability issues and production loss, deferment
and downtime incidents should be subject to an initial RCA
using the 5 Whys technique. The results of 5 Whys should be
reviewed at the daily Operations meeting and a decision madeon the appropriate actions to take.
Along with expenditure and reputation opportunities, whichhave a significant impact on the business, they should be
assessed and ranked based on the severity of their impact by
the initiator and the ORIP focal point so that resources areaimed at the worst offenders.
The Group HSE RAM is used for this assessment. Medium and
high items are then taken to the weekly ORIP meeting forranking and further assessment if necessary. This meeting is
responsible for the final ranking and prioritisation of the
incidents and should approve any requirement for a detailedRCA and allocate appropriate resources.
Select and analyse
After assessing and ranking the events based on degree/
severity of impact, the worst offenders should be selected andanalysed using appropriate problem solving tools such as:
root cause analysis, e.g. 5 Whys, Apollo
lean
six sigma, etc.
Conducting formal RCAs will involve a team being chartered
with clear objectives and goals to carry out the RCA using a
suitable methodology. Subject matter experts (SMEs) will beidentified, consulted and participate as needed during the
analysis. On completion, the team must communicate the root
causes to relevant staff and identify solutions that will preventtheir re-occurrence.
Decide and act
Having analysed the event, the next step is to decide whatshould be done and act accordingly. Appropriate actions may
include the following.
Plant changes.
Procedural changes.
Competence development.
Changes to maintenance strategies.
Changes to SAP.
Mobilisation of equipment improvement teams (EIT).
Short interval controls.
The ORIP panel endorses the decision based on
recommendations from the analysis team, which for RCA, will
be the Reliability Engineer or RCA focal point. The endorsedrecommendations are then handed over for execution.
Approved actions should be put into a Corrective Action Plan(CAP). It is the responsibility of the implementation team leader
to produce the CAP. This may be the leader of the investigation
team or some other team assigned by line management.
Actions to eliminate the root cause of the analysed incident can
be tracked in the ORIP database or in SAP until closed out.
Analyse and improve
Success is not only about identifying root causes andimplementing solutions but what has improved as a result.
The Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA process and itscontribution to business improvements should be reviewed
periodically to ensure that they are meeting the best in class
standard and that benefits are being tracked. There should bepositive indicators that performance has improved as a result of
the actions that were implemented. If not, the RCA study, for
example, should be revisited.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
10/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
8
ORIP meeting structure
Please note that attendees at the ORIP meeting are sometimes
known as the ORIP panel.
Daily Operations meeting
This meeting will primarily deal with breakdown
opportunities. The Facility Operations and MaintenanceTeam, led by the Operations Supervisor, preferably the ORIP
Focal Point, should review incidents and the resultant 5 Whys
in detail as part of this meeting. It is also acceptable for aseparate daily meeting to be held for ORIP only.
At the start of the meeting, previous actions should be
reviewed for progress and, if the actions require additionalsupport/resources not available locally, the incident should
be elevated to the ORIP register.
The team should ask:
has all relevant information been collected and has the 5Whys been conducted in a rigorous manner and the true
root cause identified?
has the risk assessment been conducted and the severity
code been entered on the 5 Whys form correctly?
has the root cause Unscheduled Deferment Code been
correctly entered and has the reporting system beenupdated?
are the immediate actions taken suitable and are the short
and long-term solutions practical and achievable?
are any resources, external to the Facility, required to
implement the short-term solution?
The team should adjust the RAM assessment, deferment code,
etc. if they consider it to be incorrect. The decisions andreasons for this should be fed back to the technician for
learning purposes.
Some form of meeting minutes or action log should be keptand actions tracked.
Weekly ORIP meeting
This meeting will be chaired by the Operations Supervisor
and attended by relevant functional support staff. It will dealprimarily with opportunities arising from a threshold being
exceeded. Prior to the meeting, action parties assigned to
take specific actions should have updated their informationinto the tracking system so that the meeting may take
decisions based on up-to-date information.
At the weekly meeting, progress is reviewed and decisions
made on the priorities for action, resource requirements,
support activity, etc. Where there is more than one Facility
within the Asset, these priorities require optimising for thewhole Asset. New RCA reports should be briefly reviewed
and, where required, additional RCA investigations should be
initiated.
Should consequential issues arise from other activities/
investigations, the meeting should initiate additional RCAinvestigations.
Monthly ORIP meeting
The monthly meeting is chaired by the Operations Manager
and attended by senior functional support staff. It will deal
primarily with opportunities that are common to severalfacilities across the Asset and those concerned with reputation
and expenditure. The high priority issues should be reviewed
to ensure appropriate action is being taken to eliminate majoror repetitive trips/failures especially where thresholds have
been exceeded. At this meeting, the appropriate Reliability
Engineer may request an RCA as a result of analysis of
equipment performance. The meeting will then decidewhether the investigation is high priority and, if so, the RCA
Lead, facilitator (if required), team composition and time scale
for reporting and presentation should be decided.
See Appendix 1 for typical terms of reference for an ORIP
meeting.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
11/60
Business Context
EP 20079014 Restricted
9
Figure 4: ORIP meeting structure
Monthly ORIP meeting
Assess and rankin ORIP database
Assess and rankin ORIP database
Asset weekly ORIP meeting
Platform1
Platform2
Platform3
ORIP information sources Daily production reports Field/control room logs Trip panel/RCA reports
Meeting goals: To review critical issues on the
ORIP register. To confirm/verify using RAM critical ORIP issues and action accordingly. To carry out process checks to ensure consistency across asset.
Meeting goals: To review critical issues on the ORIP register and report progress. To prioritise issues (using RAM) such
that resources are focused in the rightarea (one month look ahead).
To monitor the progress of the important issues.
Meeting goals: To review results of 5 Whys for trips
and unwanted events. To prioritise issues (using RAM) such
that resources are focused in the rightarea.
To monitor the progress of the important issues.
Daily Operations meeting Operations Supervisors (preferably ORIP focal point) Reliability Engineer
(where available) Maintenance Supervisor Discipline Maintenance Supervisors (E/I/M/P) (as required) Scheduler (if at location. If not, Maintenance Supervisor takes
this role) HSSE Advisor/Medic (as required) Selected Maintenance and
Operations Techs (as required)
Weekly ORIP meeting Senior Operation Supervisors Head Onshore Support Head of Maintenance Support Programmer (as required) Well Services (as required) Operations Supervisors (preferably ORIP focal point) Reliability Engineer
(where available) Maintenance Supervisor Scheduler (if at location. If not, Maintenance Supervisor takes
this role) HSSE Advisor (as required) Selected Maintenance and
Operations Techs (as required)
Monthly ORIP meeting Operations Manager Operations Supervisor Maintenance Supervisor Programmer Reliability Engineer Discipline Engineers (as required) Technical Authorities (as required) Wells and Reservoir Management Other disciplines (as required)
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
12/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
10
Roles and responsibilities
Please note that these roles are generic and might differ from
Region to Region. However it is important that all theresponsibilities should be carried out.
Global Process Owner
Owner of this process guide.
Owner of the Global ORIP database.
Identifying, recommending and deploying improvements.
Regional ORIP Co-ordinator
Providing direct and indirect support to the Asset and theORIP Focal Point.
Giving guidance on effective meetings.
Providing training and coaching on ORIP.
Providing change management skills to facilitate smooth
implementation.
ORIP Focal Point
Ensuring that ORIP is implemented and sustained.
Be part of the Asset Team (and a reasonably senior person)both for credibility during implementation and for
sustainability.
Leading by example, and bringing achievements to the
attention of senior management.
Guiding and coaching staff on the process areas and beable to seek/give clarification on any issues that arise.
Ensuring that individuals and teams within the Asset are
performing their roles and that support functions are
contributing.
Ensuring that the meetings are running to the agreedschedule, RCAs being initiated at the required frequency,and that the ORIP register (database) is being maintained.
ORIP Panel
Please note: ORIP panel refers to staff who participate in thedifferent ORIP meetings.
Supporting unscheduled deferment elimination businessprocesses actively and visibly.
Approving/rejecting proposals to conduct formal RCAs and
other analysis activities on unscheduled deferment and/or
equipment reliability incidents (endorsement of initial riskassessment and managing the overall risk presented to the
business).
Providing sufficient resources (people, time, budget) to
conduct effective analysis.
Assigning ownership within the meeting for all approved
analysis events.
Approving/rejecting the root causes found and therecommended solutions.
Endorsing objectives for solution development, e.g. criteria,
boundary conditions, minimal capital investment.
Providing resources for implementation (with Asset approval).
Reviewing progress and effectiveness of action items.
Enabling timely follow-up and execution of corrective actionsby all and removing any barriers to the implementation ofcorrective actions.
Ownership of the quality of the implementation of approved
solutions.
Operations Support Staff
Developing a sense of ownership in the Asset and itsperformance levels. Prevention is better than cure but when
failures occur, these should be seen as unacceptable.
Registering unscheduled deferment and reliability incidents
for analysis.
Conducting basic RCA using techniques such as 5 Whys.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
13/60
Business Context
EP 20079014 Restricted
11
Sharing learning from incidents with colleagues.
Utilising SAP to register and process equipment-relatedRCAs.
Reliability Engineers
Identifying equipment issues that impact on integrity,
production reliability and/or cost performance.
Escalating these to the ORIP meeting.
Facilitating formal RCA investigations.
Advising on composition of the RCA team.
Keeping the ORIP meeting informed of the status of RCAstudy and corrective actions execution.
Monitoring Asset performance for positive signs of business
improvement resulting from implementation of the actions
resulting from completed RCA events (KPIs).
Receiving, processing and sharing learning from other RCA
events outside their Asset Team.
The senior Asset Reliability Engineer should review the RCAreport for completeness and quality.
RCA Team
Conducting a preparation meeting.
Analysing the incident.
Recording root causes.
Communicating root causes.
Full details of the role of the RCA facilitator/team leader can be
found in Appendix 2.
Critical success factors for the process include:
management and staff sensitivities effective implementation
competence and skills.
A strong improvement culture can be developed if factors such
as these are embedded and sustained.
Management and staff sensitivities
Failure analysis often reveals inappropriate human intervention
and flawed (or absent) management systems. It is possible that
some managers may feel personally at fault and staff may bereluctant to reveal and address the real root causes of failures
for fear of exposing their manager.
In some cultures, this might be difficult to overcome but thebehaviour of middle and senior managers in embedding an
effective problem solving culture is important for sustained
success. Managers should not tolerate partial or incompletesolutions. Behaviours to be encouraged include:
supporting proactive behaviour
challenging fire-fighting repair priorities
ensuring that reward structures recognise managers and
teams who have few emergencies and who practise
long-term prevention and systematic problem solving.
Effective implementation
Characteristics of effective implementation include:
the ORIP meeting being accepted as the key management
process to enable the RCA process to become established
leadership commitment to the process providing resources
and clear decision making
Critical success factors
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
14/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
12
the preferred RCA approach must:
reveal the physical, human, and latent (organisational/system) roots of the events investigated. Deductivelyrevealing physical causes and/or human interventions
alone does not reveal the root causes
be as simple as possible. Field staff should be able to
apply it as part of their daily activities without a
requirement to understand complex tools or software andit must be usable at locations with poor or no IT
leverage existing practices and well-known tools;
familiarity will lead to a wider acceptance
be applicable to small, chronic and major events
promote and support a change in mindset. Failures arenot inevitable but have causes; causes can be identified
and addressed. The methodology must stress that the key
question is to understand why things went wrong andwhy people behaved as they did, not who was to blame
use an established tool and supplier. A proven approach
to training and analysis is likely to yield the best results.
New or novel approaches should be avoided
include clear organisational roles and responsibilities with
reliability at the centre of the process.
ownership by the organisation implementing and embedding
the process in their normal ways of working effective performance measures in place to drive positive
behaviour and performance
a review process in place to validate quality and promote
continuous improvement
a means of communication for lessons learned and sharingof success, e.g. via Livelink or Global networks, newsletter
articles, awards and continuous striving for improvement.
Competence and skills
To ensure the success and sustainability of the process, thetraining and development of appropriate staff in the facilitationof RCA and participation in awareness training are essential.
Appendix 3 shows the competence requirements for different
job roles. Training is available via EP Learning andDevelopment.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
15/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process
EP 20079014 Restricted
13
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCAProcess
This section of the guide gives a detailed explanation of theactivities of the main activity process. Each step of the process
has a section as follows.
1. Identify
2. Assess and Rank
3. Select and Analyse
4. Decide and Act
5. Analyse and Improve
Detailed activities
Each of these step has been broken down into its key activities.These activities form the sub-sections of the remainder of thisguide and are shown on the next two pages.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
16/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
14
The Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Map
Identify
1
Assess and Rank
2
Carry out 5 Whyson an incident
2.1
Categorise andrisk assess
2.2
Select and Analyse
3
Establish RCA Team
3.1
Identify opportunities
1.1
Conduct preparationmeeting
3.2
Analyse the incident
3.3
Record root causesand communicate
3.4
Decide what action totake and allocate
resources
2.3
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
17/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process
EP 20079014 Restricted
15
Decide and Act
4
Develop correctiveactions
4.1
Analyse and Improve
5
Monitoreffectiveness
5.1
Endorse correctiveactions at ORIP
4.2
Implement theactions
4.3
Review status of actionsat ORIP
4.4
Identify and implementimprovements
5.2
Track and calculatebenefits
5.3
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
18/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
16
Tool 1 - Top 10 Bad Actors
Tool 2 - Bad Actor Elimination Planning Guide
1. Identify
Unwanted events or conditions are those which have asignificant impact on the business in the areas of:
integrity and reliability
production loss, deferment and downtime
increased expenditure
damage to reputation.
There must be a threshold or trigger level against which anevent can be classified as significant. Production loss
thresholds should be defined at regional levels and othersthresholds at Asset level.
Measure Listing
Tools
Process Map
Identify1
Identify opportunities
1.1
Number Measure Shell EP Average Top Quartile
18.P.1 Unscheduled deferment 6.5%
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
19/60
Identify
EP 20079014 Restricted
17
Best in Class Standard
Properly defined and documented coding structure forcategorising unscheduled deferment incidents that areconsistently applied across all levels of the organisation.
Regular analysis of unscheduled deferment to identify topdeferrals. Frequency of analysis shall generally comply toweekly at Facility level, monthly at Asset level, quarterly atOU level, 6-monthly at Regional level and yearly atGlobal level.
Daily monitoring, reporting and investigation ofunscheduled deferment with properly defined trigger levels
to raise the level of attention within the organisation. Proactive management of unscheduled deferment by
providing a deferment improvement catalogue that is keptup-to-date showing the size of the opportunity, priority,action parties and target dates.
Operational controls and recovery plans in place fordifferent levels of unscheduled deferment scenarios tomitigate the business impact.
Unscheduled deferment improvement targets are setannually for the top deferrals for which remediation actionsare to be generated and performance monitored against
targets quarterly. Annual benchmarking of unscheduled deferment.
A process for accurately quantifying the size of thedeferment, which takes into consideration the transients infacilities and wells during shutdown and start-upoperations and other such related issues.
All data related to unscheduled deferment are held in thecompanys hydrocarbon allocation (HCA) system. Thisimplies that all data either from production historian (e.g.PI) or manually obtained data is entered into such asystem.
Business rules for RCA in place with trends showingimprovement over time. RCA thresholds established by theAsset Team in line with deferment reduction goals and anRCA compliance measure that is established and regularlyreviewed by management/supervisors. Any backlog ofRCA candidates will be tracked and will be readilyavailable and maintained. Targets will be set to ensurethe backlog is reduced to
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
20/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
18
1.1 Identify opportunities
Unwanted events or conditions are those which have asignificant impact on the business. There must, therefore, be a
threshold or trigger level by which an event can be classifiedas significant. Examples of thresholds for the major areaswhere unwanted events or conditions occur are shown below inFigure 5. Thresholds for production losses will be determinedregionally whilst the others can be determined at Asset level.
In order to improve, it is important to continually lower thesethresholds, but not so far as the organisation becomesswamped with minor events. When considering the impact ofan event, recurring events must be identified so that theircumulative loss can be quantified.
Opportunities are likely to arise from three sources:
incidents
bad actors
analysis driven investigation.
Incidents
These are typically unexpected and must be dealt withimmediately, e.g. the failure of an oil export pump.
Bad actors
A bad actor is an item of equipment or particular equipmenttype, which poses significant risk of failure.
It is equipment that has, through failure history, demonstratedthat it has a high risk of failure and it has experienced fourfailures in a 12-month period. This threshold is a starting pointfor all Assets and should be reviewed annually.
As reliability improves, it should be possible to reduce thisthreshold thus encouraging continuous improvement.
Equipment designated as a bad actor by the Asset ReliabilityEngineer should be investigated in the same way as equipmentfailures or reliability incidents at an investigation level accordingto risk.
Figure 5: Trigger threshold
Reputation
Increased expenditure
Production loss, deferment and downtime
Input Focal Point
OIM/Asset Ops Team Leader
* Actions linked to Production loss above 25000m3 oil/>3 MM sm3 gas/>50000m3 water injection need to be closed out by the Asset Leader.
Plan overspend by 30%.Re-work with cost of loss >$100k[ie Significant on RAM].
OIM/Asset Ops Team Leader
Any event that impacts integrity.Any unplanned event/work/breakdowns andequipment reliability issue or threat with amedium/high risk on the RAM matrix.
Deferment/outage/capacity loss equivalent to>12,500m oil or gas equiv/>25,000m WI(*) [ie Significant on RAM].
Any potential event as a result ofnon-compliance with a medium/high risk
on the RAM matrix.
Production Programmer
Cost Planner/MaintenanceTeam Leader
Threshold
Integrity and reliability issues and threats
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
21/60
Identify
EP 20079014 Restricted
19
It is recommended that a bad actor list is developed based onoverall business impact. In addition, both performance of
individual items of equipment and groups of equipment typesshould be considered.
Analysis driven investigation
At the monthly ORIP meeting, a request for an analysis drivenRCA may be requested.
Proactive application of RCA occurs when learning fromincidents takes place. In such cases, RCA would be used todetermine if any risks to the business exist that have actuallymaterialised on another Asset either inside the Shell Group or inthe industry thus allowing proactive steps to be taken to preventa recurrence of the incident. RCA can and should also be usedfollowing analysis of broader business performance. RCAshould, therefore, cover the following.
Learning from incidents and near misses.
Well or facilities production performance, e.g. scale build-upor internal fouling.
Corrective Maintenance - repetitive failures, highconsumption of materials or consumables and correctivemaintenance (CM) cost. An example would be equipmentidentified for work by an Equipment Improvement Team (EIT).
Reliability - overall low or declining reliability (platform, train,system, equipment or component).
Inspection - RBI, e.g. excessive rate of wall thinning,corrosion or erosion or other inspection findings. Thissituation should also include a review of the original RiskBased Inspection analysis.
Audit and Reviews - undesired findings from any audit.
Tool 1 - Top 10 Bad Actors - a template for listing keyinformation about bad actors.
T
Tool 2 - Bad Actor Elimination Planning Guide - sets outa process for eliminating bad actors.
T
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
22/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
20
2. Assess and Rank
All integrity and reliability issues and production loss,deferment and downtime incidents should be subject to aninitial RCA using the 5 Whys technique. The results of 5Whys should be reviewed during the ORIP part of the dailyOperations meeting and a decision made on the appropriateactions to take.
Along with expenditure and reputation opportunities, whichhave a significant impact on the business, they should beassessed and ranked based on the severity of their impact so
that resources are aimed at the worst offenders. The GroupHSE RAM is used for this assessment.
The weekly ORIP meeting is responsible for the final rankingand prioritisation of the incidents and should approve anyrequirement for a detailed RCA and allocate appropriateresources.
Tool 3 - 5 Whys Template Tool 4 - Group HSE RAM
Tools
Best in Class Standard
A root cause analysis process that is routinely performedby Operations staff. This will lead to root causeidentification and the generation of corrective actions thateliminate recurring problems. Support staff such asengineers, planners and supervisors will all have beentrained in a formal RCA process.
ORIP meetings are planned, held regularly, are wellattended by key players (Asset Leader, Ops Manager,Maintenance Manager, Reliability Eng, Maint/OpsSupport Eng, Daily Delivery Coordinator, Facility Staff).
Incidents are tracked and the incident thresholds, areadopted and communicated to Asset staff and applied.
CMMS Notification breakdown flags and breakdownstart/end times are accurately recorded on every failure.CMMS Notifications will be used on corrective workorders and all Object/Damage/Cause and Activitycodes will be populated. All CMMS notifications will be
reviewed for completeness and accurate use of theObject/Damage/Cause and Activity codes.
Process Map
Assess and Rank2
Carry out 5 Whyson an incident
2.1
Categorise andrisk assess
2.2
Decide what action totake and allocate resources
2.3
Measure Listing
Number Measure Shell EP Average Top Quartile
18.S.1 RCA completed against threshold 60% >90%
18.P.1 Percentage of Unscheduled Deferment Covered by RCA 80% 90%
(as a percentage of IPSC)
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
23/60
Assess and Rank
EP 20079014 Restricted
21
2.1 Carry out 5 Whys on an incident
When an incident occurs, it is critical that key information aboutthe circumstances and process conditions are captured
immediately. Information recorded should include:
time and date
incident type
system affected
status of the operation at the time the event occurred
duration of event where applicable
description of the incident
SAP functional location for equipment
business impact.
This information should be captured in the ORIP Register (seebox below) and in SAP for equipment failures via theappropriate notification.
A fit for purpose RCA should be conducted on as manytrips/failures as possible. This might initially be a the 5 Whys
followed by a more formal RCA such as Apollo if the 5 Whysdoes not reveal the root cause.
When an event/failure occurs, an Operator or MaintenanceTechnician is sent to restore the situation and performdiagnostics to trace the fault and restore the plant to anoperating condition. At the same time, s/he should conduct aninitial RCA using the 5 Whys technique.
However, even though this is a very simple and quick process,it is recognised that Asset and Operations staff need to prioritisetheir resources and focus on the tasks adding most value.
If the 5 Whys does not reveal the root cause or a multiplefailure pattern is identified, an Apollo investigation or equivalentshould be started which should:
be driven by the local equipment owner and/or maintainerin conjunction with the Reliability Engineer or RCA FocalPoint
be attended by representatives from both Operations andMaintenance
result in actions that are clearly defined.
A more detailed description of the 5 Whys is given inAppendix 4 and an overview of the Apollo process is given inAppendix 5.
The ORIP register
A web-based register for Global use is under development.Currently, this register can be in any appropriate format, e.g.paper-based, spreadsheet or database. Ideally, there shouldbe one register for each Facility rolled up to Asset level.Typically, it should track opportunities through the following
four stages.
IN - to register an opportunity.
OPEN - to track an opportunity through theanalysis.
COMPLETED - when all corrective actions have beenclosed out.
CLOSED - when an analysis has been completedand accepted.
It should also contain performance indicators.
Maintenance staff shall use SAP through Z8 notifications andassociated work orders for equipment defects. Informationheld in SAP should be transferred to the ORIP register asappropriate.
Tools 3 - 5 Whys template - can be used to write up a 5Whys analysis.
T
Note
Object Damage Codes should be used to support theRCA effort. They should be captured in the initial Z1
notifications. If additional information results from a 5Whys analysis or a Z8 initiated formal RCAinvestigation for equipment failures, the data entered inthe object damage codes can be updated.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
24/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
22
2.2 Categorise and risk assess
Trips/failures that do not cause a deferment should also beinvestigated because:
there may be valuable lessons to be learned that are ofbenefit to the Operations or Maintenance and Integrityfunctions
similar equipment that is part of the direct production systemmay be at risk of the same failure
it is possible to draw a parallel with world class HSSEwhere every near miss is investigated in order tounderstand the circumstances. This leads to a provenreduction in serious incidents.
It is essential to prioritise each opportunity correctly to ensurethat all issues impacting on the business can be compared on
an equal basis and that the most important unwanted events areanalysed first. This includes all incidents, bad actors andanalysis driven investigations.
The Shell Group HSE Risk Assessment Matrix (RAM), shown inFigure 6, shall be used to quantify and prioritise identifiedopportunities. In general, the severity of ORIP opportunitiesshould be based on the severity levels of the RAM Assetsconsequence category. The exceptions to this are opportunitiesfrom the ORIP reputation category, which should be directlymapped to the severities in the reputation consequencecategory.
Figure 6: Group HSE RAM
No injury orhealth effect
Slight injuryor health
effect
Minor injuryor health
effect
Major injuryor health
effect
PTD or up to3 fatalities
More than3 fatalities
Nodamage
Slightdamage
Minordamage
Majordamage
Massivedamage
Noeffect
Slighteffect
Minoreffect
Majoreffect
Massiveeffect
Noimpact
Slightimpact
Minorimpact
Majorimpact
Massiveimpact
0
Severity
Poeple
Assets
Environment
Reputation
CONSEQUENCES
Has happenedat the Location ormore than onceper year in theOrganisation
Has happened inthe Organisation
or more thanonce per year in
the industry
Never heardof in theindustry
Heard of inthe industry
Has happenedmore than onceper year at the
Location
A B C D E
INCREASING LIKELIHOOD
Moderateimpact
Moderateeffect
Moderatedamage
1
2
3
4
5
ORIP Category
Integrity and Reliability Production loss, deferment and downtime Increased expenditure
ORIP Category
Reputation
Low Risk - manage for continuousimprovement
Medium Risk - Incorporate Risk ReductionMeasuresandDemonstrate ALARP
High risk - investigate alternatives
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
25/60
Assess and Rank
EP 20079014 Restricted
23
Figure 7: Opportunity ranking
Action Example
High
Medium
Low
Mitigation mandatory and shall be applied immediately theopportunity is identified
Escalate to monthly ORIP meeting or deal with immediately.
Operations Supervisor to endorse rating.
Line break leading to loss of containment will requireimmediate isolation of broken section.
Action necessary where the ORIP meeting structure is in placeand incidents could be closed out at either weekly or dailymeetings.
Operations supervisor refers to person-in-charge at location.
Mitigation necessary but shall be applied after endorsementof Operations Supervisor.
Escalate to weekly ORIP meeting
Endorsement by ORIP Focal Point
Sudden degradation in efficiency leading to a situation wheretwo duty pumps out of three are unable to maintain the levelin a vessel. The third pump (standby) needs to be put intooperation to control the level thereby avoiding a trip of theentire process train. To operate in this mode, the logic needsto be overridden to allow simultaneous operation of all thepumps.
Action is applicable where the ORIP meeting structure is inplace and incidents could be closed out at the daily meeting
Mitigation not mandatory
No escalation required
No endorsement required
Figure 7 shows how in the Assess and Rank phase of the ORIPprocess, opportunities from the Identify stage are rankedaccording to their perceived risk levels, high, medium and low.This ranking determines how the opportunity will be actioned
The cost impact of the incident can be calculated fromdeferment and/or Opex either as a single cost for a singleevent or annually when a recurring incident is ranked andprioritised.
The decision about which problem-solving methodology to usefor the investigation is based on the complexity and priority of
the problem. The final decision will be taken by the ORIPmeeting.
During the investigation of a seemingly minor incident, it maybecome apparent that the risk to the business is higher or lowerthan was at first thought. The incident should be re-routed andre-prioritised for escalation and appropriate action.
Tool 4 - Group Risk Assessment Matrix - gives a more
detailed description of the consequence categories andseverity.
T
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
26/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
24
2.3 Decide what action to take andallocate resources
The results of 5 Whys and subsequent risk assessments should bereviewed in the ORIP section of the daily Operations meeting and
a decision made on the appropriate actions to take. Operationscan then decide whether the original incident should be proposedfor the formal RCA process at the weekly ORIP meeting. Seepages 8 and 9 for a description of the ORIP meeting structure andAppendix 1 for typical agendas.
This step is designed to ensure that the right people in theorganisation are fully informed about the events within their Assets,which are having a negative impact on performance. The weeklyORIP meeting will decide whether a formal RCA should be carriedout. Its members are accountable for the decisions made aboutwhich incidents to investigate and which solutions to implement.
The Reliability Engineer needs to prepare for the ORIP meetingby quantifying the number and type of resources that will berequired for the Analysis phase.
A member of the ORIP meeting should sponsor an RCA teamwhich will be led by a facilitator. For more information, see step3.1 Establish RCA Team.
If it is decided that a formal approach should be used, a Z8notification should be raised in SAP for equipment-related incidentsto initiate the process. This should be done by the ReliabilityEngineer or equivalent position in Operations. A generic SAP Z8work flow process can be found in Appendix 6 and a user guideexplaining how to input data on the CD-ROM.
The maximum time allowed for completion of the RCA study isdependent on the outcome of the risk assessment as follows:
A report of all RCAs registered in SAP should be submitted tothe ORIP meeting by the Reliability Engineer or equivalent FocalPoint for ranking, approval and progress reporting.
This report is the register of proposed and ongoing RCAs andensures that the focus on current business needs is not lost byranking any new priority RCAs against other existing RCAs.
If it is decided that an RCA should not be carried out, the decisionand reasons should be communicated to the initiator.
If there is no requirement for further analysis, move to step 4.1Develop corrective actions.
RAM Category Complete study within
High 6 weeks
Medium 8 weeks
Low 12 weeks
Note
In the event of an incident, where an immediate response isrequired, key members of the Asset Leadership Team shouldbe consulted and an investigation instigated without waitingfor a submission through ORIP, i.e. they are fast-tracked.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
27/60
Select and Analyse
EP 20079014 Restricted
25
3. Select and Analyse
After assessing and ranking the events based on the degree/severity of impact, the worst offenders should be selected andanalysed using appropriate problem solving tools such as:
Root Cause Analysis, e.g. 5 Whys, Apollo, TapRoot
Tripod
Lean
Six Sigma, etc.
Conducting the more formal RCAs will involve a team beingchartered with clear objectives and goals to carry out theRCA using a suitable methodology. Subject matter experts(SMEs) will be identified, consulted and participate asneeded during the analysis.
The team must then communicate the root causes to relevantstaff and identify solutions that will prevent their re-occurrence.
Tool 5 - RCA report form Tool 6 - Generic investigation study
Tools
Process Map
Select and Analyse
3
Establish RCA Team
3.1
Conduct preparationmeeting
3.2
Analyse the incident
3.3
Record root causesand communicate
3.4
Best in Class Standard
Operators and Reliability Specialists who areknowledgeable about RCA concepts and have eitherundergone RCA training or participated in several RCAs.There will also be RCA champions who have receivedtraining on the RCA Process and managers andsupervisors who demonstrate support and participate inRCAs.
An RCA Process Guide that has been communicated toAsset teams is well understood and is being activelyworked. The guide will include a recommended causalprocess, i.e. TapRoot, 5 Whys, and will be used tofacilitate completing an RCA analysis. A documentedmethod for identifying repeat failures and a thoroughReliability Review of all available data will be performedfor each required RCA.
Measure Listing
Number Measure Shell EP Average Top Quartile
18.S.1 RCA completed against threshold 60% >90%
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
28/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
26
3.1 Establish RCA Team
Once the ORIP meeting approves the need for a formal multi-discipline RCA, the resources identified by the Reliability
Engineer are assigned to a team after discussion with the AssetTeam and Functional Groups. For high risk events, a seniormanager is always involved plus a core team. The team ischartered by the Team Leader to agree deliverables and roles.Team composition will vary depending on the problem and itsseverity.
Factors that will ensure the success of the RCA team include:
a clear problem statement
the use of, and adherence to, a robust RCA methodology
cross-functional membership factual data used as the basis for all analysis activities (RCA
is part of a fact-based problem solving process)
commitment from the ORIP meeting to evaluate findings andrecommendations fairly
measurement of progress in implementing solutions
competent facilitation
participation of staff responsible for the analysed activity orequipment with the analysis preferably done at the worksite
a balanced team with enough subject matter experts toallow discussion.
The performance of the facilitator can make the differencebetween a successful or unsuccessful RCA even if there is aculture where RCAs are valued and their results acted upon.The successful RCA facilitator will meet the following criteria.
Impartial. The facilitator should have nothing to gain or loseby the results of the RCA. Specifically, they should extractinformation efficiently from the people who know the details(those who were there, experts, etc.) without being biased
by their own experience or interpretation. They do not listenonly to the loudest voice.
Organised. The facilitator should be skilled at organisinginformation and putting it into a clear format for presentationto others.
Persistent. The facilitator should not give up in the face ofproblems or difficulties but at the same time needs to
recognise when the team cannot progress without moredata.
Tactful. The facilitator will come across situations wherepeople are reluctant to participate or give information. Thisneeds to be handled diplomatically and assertively to getwhat is required to complete the RCA.
Strict in conducting meetings, e.g. stop arguments and makesure the investigation moves forward.
Thorough. The facilitator will ensure that all possiblecontributing factors to the incident are incorporated into the
analysis, corners are not cut and people factors missed.
For issues that are considered as high, a managementrepresentative shall be included in the RCA investigation team.
3.2 Conduct preparation meeting
A preparation meeting, teleconference or individual briefingsshould be held with the team members to develop the charterand the terms of reference for the analysis. The meeting shouldlast about an hour and, ideally, the ORIP sponsor should makean opening statement to set out:
the business impact of the issue being investigated
objectives for solution development, e.g. criteria, boundaryconditions, constraints such as HSSE and/or life cycle costand/or production and/or minimum capital investment
his/her expectations and, most importantly, give his/hercommitment to support the process through to full completionof the resulting recommendations.
The charter should be a brief, one paragraph problemstatement setting out why the team has been formed.
Prior to the meeting, the following activities should be carriedout where appropriate.
Identify and invite external observer(s) for lateral learningand/or an HSSE representative.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
29/60
Select and Analyse
EP 20079014 Restricted
27
Presentation by the Asset Team of the current maintenanceand operating strategy for the equipment under analysis.This should include performance indicators (MTBF),maintenance costs, PM programme, etc.
Provision of historical information such as drawings, SAPdata, warehouse data, operating information, interviews withkey staff, etc.
Provision by the Asset Team of spend data split byMaintenance/Projects associated with the failure beinganalysed to help quantify potential benefits fromimplementing the RCA recommendations.
Develop a failure/cost history in order to establish the baseline impact on business performance.
Arrange a site visit.
Activities such as these will not be discussed at the preparationmeeting other than to verify that they will be available at theappropriate point in the RCA.
The meeting should be chaired by the RCA facilitator or TeamLeader who will brief team members about:
individual roles and responsibilities (including data collection)
the role of the facilitator
objectives and deliverables (including acceptance criteria)
time-line (including next meeting)
post-RCA process.
Before getting started, it will be useful for the team to be awareof any criteria that will be used to judge whether or not the
recommendations that they make will be accepted by the ORIPmeeting. Acceptance criteria could include the following.
Eliminate or mitigate the consequences of the cause in caseswhere it is not technically or economically possible ordesirable to eliminate causes. It might not always bepossible to eliminate a cause. For example, if scheduledshutdowns are too long, it would not be possible toeliminate them altogether but it might be possible to reducetheir duration and/or the time between them.
Provide a predicted percentage return on investment. This islikely to be the impact that correcting the problem has onproduction reliability and/or unit operating cost.
No conflict with scheduled projects. Before starting an RCA,it is good practice to check that plans are not in place tomake changes to the equipment or area in which it operateswithin a reasonable time frame, i.e. before a next potentialrepeat incident could occur.
Clear resource and cost justifications. The recommendationsshould include clear cost justification and resourcerequirements.
Positive effects on the whole system. Recommendationsshould not be accepted if they deal with a root cause butmight cause problems in other parts of the system. This oftenarises with partial solutions. There will be a number ofpossible recommendations. These need to be rankedagainst acceptance criteria, e.g. the solution must, shouldand must not criteria.
The team should make sure that they understand all the criteriathat decision makers at the ORIP meeting will consider beforegiving the go-ahead to implement recommendations.
A form, such as the completed example shown in Figure 8 onpage 29 and 30, should be used to record the key facts.
Tool 5 - Root Cause Analysis Report Form - template thatcan be used for the report.
T
Example problem statement
Compressor XYZ has failed three times in the last 12months. These failures have resulted in productiondeferment of xxx bbls and associated maintenance costsof $yyy. This team has been formed to identify the rootcauses of the failure of compressor XYZ and recommendcost-effective solutions that can be readily implemented.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
30/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
28
3.3 Analyse the incident
It is not the purpose of this guide to give a prescriptivemethodology for carrying out RCAs. Any recognised
methodology meeting the criteria listed in Critical Success Factorson page 11 can be used.
Apollo is frequently used and an overview of it can be found inAppendix 5.
It is important to remember that most RCA experts agree that60% to 70% of all RCA root causes are people related ratherthan equipment related. If the RCA and its recommendationsfocus only on technical or hardware issues, important peoplerelated issues may either be missed or not given sufficientattention.
After the analysis, the results should be used to summarise theresults of the review and record the actions from the RCA.
The root causes should be recorded in the ORIP Register andSAP via the Z8 notification if equipment-related.
Relevant staff should be made aware of the root causes of theincident. Typically, these will be Operators, Maintainers andEngineers. This should be done through appropriatecommunication channels such as meetings or by e-mail.
If the root causes have the potential to cause further damage,the facilitator should communicate this to the key personnel whoare likely to be affected as soon as it is identified rather thanwaiting until all the RCA work is complete.
3.4 Record root causes andcommunicate
Tool 6 - Generic investigation study - an example of aninvestigation study.
T
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
31/60
Select and Analyse
EP 20079014 Restricted
29
Figure 8: Root Cause Analysis Report
Significance
Safety None
Environmental None
Production Loss 2 Million Nm3 (over 2006) @ 3 cts/ Nm3 = $ 60.000,- deferment costs.
Maintenance Costs $ 62.000,- since July 2004 (year average $ 57.000,-)P-0605 = $ 26.300, - P-0606= $ 21.800, - P-0607 = $13.800, -
Frequency To date September 2006: 20 times since start up in 2004
Total Cost $ 117.000, - per annum
Reputation As reliable supplier
Investigation Team Geveke Erik Nijman TechnicianAndre Westerlaken Regio Service ManagerRenee Ippel Project EngineerKees Laseur Project Engineer
Maybelle Henk Blaauw Offshore installation managerRieks Everts Operations SupportBas de Jong Process EngineerJoop Maat Rotating Discipline EngineerGeert Meursing Sr. Maintenance and Reliability Engineer
Problem Definition
Frequent failure of the ORINOCO-09 condensate pumps P-605/06/07 resulting in poor availability, high maintenance costs and deferment
when the second pump trips as well.
Occurrence The 3 pumps 20 times in about 2 years of operation2004 (newly installed) = 1 failure2005 = 5 failures2006 (until September) = 14 failures
Date Occurred Randomly over the year, unpredictable, no tendency recognised.Production deferment will show an increasing trend as decreasing reservoir pressure will require more compression andresult in increased utilisation of the condensate pumps.
Summary of investigation
Summary:The Condensate pumps P-0605/06/07 were analysed to address the randomly, unpredictable increasing failure rate. A variety of defectshave been reported in SAP since the start up of the new designed condensate system in 2004. These defects were analysed and discussed in
the RCA study.
Conclusion:Although a variety of defects were recorded a common direction could be identified towards the process conditions for the suction valves.Investigation on the platform showed a variable suction pressure and pulsation dampeners installed outside the design range. Verification on theline up and material investigation on the failing parts did not show deficiencies from the design documents. The start-up procedure is ratedeffective. Material investigation on the failed parts did conclude no material or chemical issues related to the failures.The design parameters are reviewed if they cover the operational envelope/parameters. The hydraulic dynamic processes conditions werechecked and verified against the design criteria and the suction piping sizing was recalculated. The results showed that the piping diameter wastoo small and the pulsation dampeners were not effective. Replacement of the 3 suction piping system with 10 is will make it effective.The Project Management Process was reviewed to verify if the process controls were well applied.The review observed some shortcomings in the control and hand over process.The investigation was completed and corrective actions were formulated to prevent failures of a similar type.Follow up of SAP and QWR initiated actions are tracked via these systems.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
32/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
30
Figure 8: Root Cause Analysis Report (continued)
Investigations
Possible Causes Investigation Actions Assigned to Due Done
No early warning mechanism installed todetect a membrane failure. The present 4mA signal gives the actual pressure betweenthe two membranes but no alarm.
Foreign materials such as loose bolts arereported on failures
Loose/broken parts of the "sluisventiel"
The start of the second and/or third pumpcauses additional vibrations
Limited capacity of the suction line
Restricted capacity of the suction line
Inadequate design/datasheets
Limited capacity of the suction line
Ineffective project controls
Check if the signal can be transferred into an alarm. Investigate iffailure types are reported/and known
Investigate if failure types are reported/and known
Report the metallurgical investigation, check the correctness andsuitability of the material for the process conditions, and correctsizing,
Review the start up procedure/sequence in relation to thecondensate flow.
1. Check the hydraulic dynamic processes conditions and verifythe design criteria.
2. Recalculate the discharge piping when suction piping needs tomodified
Verify if small diameter parts as reduced bore valves are fitted inthe suction lines and if suction filters/strainers are fully open
1. Check the datasheet as it's thought that it stated one pressureinstead of a pressure range
2. Investigate if the design parameters cover the operationalenvelope/parameters
Raise a SAP Z5 notification to start the PIR/modification process.Replace suction piping/system with increased diameter
Raise a QWR to start the process to close the controls gaps in theEngineering process.
Henk Blaauw
Joop Maat
Joop Maat/Geveke
Henk Blaauw
Bas de Jong
Henk Blaauw
Joop Maat
Henk Blaauw
Geert Meursing
01.06.06
01.06.06
01.08.06
15.06.06
01.08.06
15.06.06
15.06.06
01.09.06
01.09.06
01.06.06
01.06.06
01.08.06
15.06.06
01.08.06
15.06.06
15.06.06
01.09.06
01.09.06
Report Writer: Geert Meursing
Report Date: 17 September 2006
Approval:
Appendix 1 Cause and Effect Chart
Name: Function: Date:
For Lateral Learning, the report to be copied to: (tick the appropriate box)
Principal Discipline engineer:q Civil and abandonment q Control and automation q Corrosion engineeringq Electrical engineering q Reliability engineering q Rotating equipmentq Safety engineering q Static engineering q Structure equipmentq Inspection q Pipelines q ...
Possible Causes Investigation Actions Assigned to Due Done
Solutions
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
33/60
Tools
Decide and Act
EP 20079014 Restricted
31
4. Decide and Act
Having analysed the event, the next step is to decide whatshould be done and act accordingly. Appropriate actionsmay include the following.
Plant changes
Procedural changes
Competence development
Changes to maintenance strategies
Changes to SAP
Mobilisation of Equipment Improvement Teams (EIT)
Short interval controls.
The Reliability Engineer or RCA Focal Point should ask theORIP meeting to endorse the findings and recommendedsolutions.
Approved solutions should be put into a Corrective ActionPlan (CAP). It is the responsibility of the implementation teamleader to produce the CAP. This may be the leader of theinvestigation team or some other team assigned by linemanagement.
The RCA or other interventions are only considered closed
when all follow-up actions have been implemented.
Tool 7 - SIC Template
Measure Listing
Number Measure Shell EP Average Top Quartile
18.P.2 Overdue action items >5
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
34/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
32
4.1 Develop corrective actions
The solutions which result from the 5 Whys, the more formalRCA investigation or any other type of analysis activity will vary
in terms the amount of budget and resources required. Somewill require little and can be implemented as part of day-to-dayactivities. Others might be large and require a changeproposal.
However, whatever the scale, the solutions should:
eliminate the causes or mitigate the consequences of theproblem
be practical
be clear
be cost effective comply with any recommendation criteria set prior to the start
of any RCA study
be implementable in the short to medium-term whereverpossible.
Investigation activities are not seen as part of the solution orcorrective action plan. All solutions should be endorsed by therelevant Subject Matter Expert/Technical Authority.
One solution that is recommended is the use of short interval
controls. These allow process owners to review and react tochanges in key production parameters over a short time period(generally two to four hours). Control limits are set for the keyparameters (usually slightly inside the alarm limits) andperformance against these limits monitored.
If a process or piece of equipment starts to perform outsidethese limits this will be identified at the next review interval andbefore the alarm limits are reached.
In many cases, ORIP participants will determine the course ofaction appropriate to the issues being discussed. However,
corrective actions (including budget and resource estimates) toissues that have been addressed via an RCA study should beforwarded to the monthly ORIP meeting by the ReliabilityEngineer or RCA Focal Point for discussion and if ORIP does nothave the authority, then forwarded to the relevant parties forapproval. The ORIP meeting should assign appropriate priorityto the implementation of the actions and recommend that therequired budget and resources required to complete them beapproved. If the recommended corrective actions are rejected,the RCA team should revise them and re-submit them to theORIP meeting.
4.3 Implement the actions
In most cases, the allocation and subsequent implementation ofactions from ORIP will be straightforward. Where correctiveactions have been proposed from an RCA, there may be aneed to engage with staff who were not part of the analysis tomake sure they understand the requirements and priority of theactions that have been approved by ORIP. It is essential thateffective communication between the two parties takes place tomake sure that ownership is transferred and that all parties areclear about the progress monitoring process at ORIP.
Approved corrective actions should be put into a CorrectiveAction Plan (CAP). It is the responsibility of the ImplementationFocal Point to produce the CAP. At one end of the scale, theCAP could and should be no more than the list of correctiveactions in the RCA investigation report. At the other end of thescale, it could be a detailed project plan requiring significantresources, chartered teams, etc.
The Corrective Action Plan should include:
incident record number
risk assessment of incident
causes of the defect
solutions/actions
name of responsible party for completing action
due date of action.
4.2 Endorse corrective actions atORIP
Tool 7 - SIC Template - explains how to use short intervalcontrols and gives several examples. A short interval control
process guide is also available on the Shell Wide Web.
T
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
35/60
Decide and Act
EP 20079014 Restricted
33
Where maintenance work must be executed, the Work theprocess specified in the Work Preparation, Scheduling and
Execution process guide (EP 2006-5445) should be followed.
Note that between 60% and 70% of root causes will be humanfactors related and will not require a formal work order to beraised. The solutions are likely to be process or proceduralchanges and associated communication and training.However, planners and schedulers will need to allow for staff tohave time off to attend appropriate events and this should beallowed for in any allocation of resources.
4.4 Review status of actions at
ORIPDuring all ORIP meetings, the progress of all actionimplementations, including RCAs, should be tracked using theORIP register, SAP-generated reports and information submittedby the Reliability Engineer(s) and/or implementation focalpoints. This is to identify any slippage and/or backlog that isbuilding up and to ensure that appropriate remedial action istaken.
An historical weakness of the RCA process was the potential forthose in charge of RCA management to lose focus during
implementation and to fail to identify that work resulting fromRCAs was not being completed. This step, involving the ORIPmeeting is, therefore, very important in ensuring that progress ismonitored effectively.
An RCA can only be considered closed when all action itemshave been completed. Furthermore, the RCA can only beconsidered effective when there are positive indicators that theimplementation of the RCA actions has lead to an improvementin performance.
The following indicators are useful for informing the ORIPmeeting where things are stuck or whether things are
progressing to plan.
RCA investigation study completed.
All actions ranked and work orders created.
Work orders listed in 90-day plan or Capex approved andexecution year allocated for Capex items.
Actions actually executed in field.
Full RCA actions closed out.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
36/60
Unscheduled Deferment, ORIP and RCA Process Guide
EP 20079014 Restricted
34
5. Analyse and Improve
Success is not just about identifying root causes andimplementing solutions but what has improved as a result.
The unscheduled deferment, ORIP and RCA process and itscontribution to business improvements, should be reviewedperiodically to ensure that they meet the best in classstandard and that benefits are being tracked.
Process Map
A history of completed RCAs for each Asset for aperiod of five years. Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) willalso be identified, consulted, and participate, asneeded, while conducting RCA analysis.
A periodic review of completed RCAs and CorrectiveAction Plans. These will check for data quality,accuracy, completeness and thoroughness of the RCAprocess. They will be conducted by an SME orReliability Engineer and the findings will be reviewed
with the Asset Teams.
Analyse and Improve
5
Monitor
effectiveness5.1
Identify and implementimprovements
5.2
Track and calculatebenefits
5.3
Best in Class Standard
Measure Listing
Number Measure Shell EP Average Top Quartile
18.S.2 Number of RCAs Completed per Annum Total number Total number
18.S.3 Repeat failure listing by equipment Equipment Specific Equipment Specific
18.P.2 RCA Overdue Action item Compliance >5
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
37/60
Analyse and Improve
EP 20079014 Restricted
35
Asset leadership is responsible for the overall monitoring of allaspects of performance. An integral part of this process is the
follow-up and quantification of the success of solutions designedto reduce unscheduled deferment. Depending on results, theAsset Team should adjust the trigger thresholds.
The quantification of value as a result of successfulimplementation can be based on:
reduced production loss, deferment and downtime
improved reliability
reduction in loss of containment
reduction in corrective maintenance
reduction in labour, consumables or spares consumption
improved safety performance.
For equipment related events, this will be the responsibility ofthe Reliability Engineer.
Suitable KPIs will need to be determined when a solution isimplemented. An example is given below.
When it has been proven quantitatively (KPIs) that solutions haveworked, this information should be shared within the Asset Team
and cascaded within the work place (as a minimum). TheReliability Engineer should also consider what informationshould be shared with relevant Principal Technical Experts witha view to wider distribution.
Deferment Identification and Reporting
Ideally, all OUs should use the Global Deferment CodingStructure which has been implemented in Energy Components(EC) and which is the preferred tool for Hydrocarbon ProductionInformation Management in Shell EP. The process will be builtinto the role of the Surface Production Team in EPT as an annual
Global roll-up exercise, and thus facilitate the sharing oflearning and continuous adjustment of Global Support ResourcePool to address common and recurrent bad actors across theRegions. The annual top deferral analysis will complement thebenchmarking exercise, which currently does not cover allAssets and in most cases is not carried out annually.
5.2 Identify and implementimprovements
When improvement areas have been identified, the next stepwill be to implement them.
This will involve analysing the KPIs to ascertain areas forimprovement and, subsequently, analysing the reasons forinadequate performance. When the causes have beenidentified, and possible solutions developed, an action planshould be created to address some or all of the issuesidentified. The activities on the action plan should becommensurate with the business risk or opportunity.
An ORIP meeting should be used to agree appropriate actionsand implement them.
5.1 Monitor effectiveness
Note
It should be a matter of routine that measures such as MTBF
for critical equipment should be tracked and analysedregularly by the Reliability Engineer and Operations staff
Example
The mean time between failure for a centrifugal pump is 3months. An RCA shows that lubrication is ineffective and adifferent bearing is being used to the one recommended bythe pump manufacturer. The lubrication regime is improvedand the recommended bearings used. Improvements can bemeasured as follows.
Measure MTBF (increasing trend should be visible).
There should be no failures due to the causes identified inthe RCA.
Cost savings due to manpower not being used for
corrective maintenance and a reduction in replacementbearings can be quantified and extrapolated over theworking life of the pump.
5/28/2018 Unscheduled Deferment
38/60
Implementing improvements requires significant effort and it isimportant to demonstrate that the effort is paying off.
Benefits from the process come through four main areas.
1. Reduced unscheduled deferment leading to more uptime andmore sales revenue.
2. Less time spent fixing failed equipment leading to reducedlabour costs (both direct and indirect).
3. Less materials consumed to re-instate equipment to its desiredstate leading to less material costs.
4. Fewer human errors.
Measuring the benefits is not as easy as it may seem. Mostmanagers usually ask for cumulative performance reports suchas year-to-date oper
Recommended