Layer | Fill | Outline |
---|
Map layers
Theme | Visible | Selectable | Appearance | Zoom Range (now: 0) |
---|
Fill | Stroke |
---|---|
Collaborating Authors
Supplier Performance Management (SPM) is a process to improve the overall performance of Suppliers, promote better working relationships with Suppliers and remove poor performing suppliers from Prequalified Bidders List. Once SPM is in place Supplier Performance can be tracked, analyzed and shared with confidence. Owner company can clearly identify poor performing Suppliers and work with them to improve their performance. The steps involved in achieving an effective SPM are Measure Supplier performance, Analyze available data, Communicate/Engage Supplier and work for tangible Improvement. What is Supplier Performance Management (SPM)?
There has been a significant uplift in the level of activity around Health and Safety management systems with State and Federal government agencies joining with industry sector associations and others in the calls to promote - and in many cases require - their uptake. Implementing a Health and Safety management system implies the expenditure of substantial resources for all organizations that elect to do so. Over 95% of this real economic cost is attributable to the time inputs from personnel working within the organization on program development (drafting policies, procedures and the like), training (most personnel will be trained) and auditing (internal and maybe 3rd party). Most expect the implementation of management systems and the investment of resources this implies to create operational efficiencies and other Health and Safety performance gains: less incidents; better compliance with regulations and ongoing reductions in Health and Safety impact. Achieving meaningful Health and Safety performance improvement along these lines will reduce Health and Safety liabilities. It will also reduce the level of management distraction which is almost always associated with poor performance. Better Health and Safety performance will generally also lead to greater operational flexibility arising from enhanced trust with stakeholders (employees, neighbors, regulators, etc). Worryingly, a number of studies carried out in the UK, Europe and the US over the past two years have concluded that management systems do not give rise to meaningful performance improvement. This ought to be a real source of concern to all who are seeking to encourage their uptake, not least those regulatory authorities that are intending to provide regulatory incentives to organisations which have implemented management systems. The findings of these studies are surprising for some. Others - especially those with muchexperience in the field - have been questioning the value of traditional document-focused approaches to H+S MS implementation. The traditional approach is to first develop a body of documented policies and procedures to meet the requirements of Health and Safety management systems standards like OHSAS 18001 and then expend effort implementing these (much training) and then follow up with conformance audits on an ongoing basis. Those who see little value in this approach argue that it cannot yield meaningful performance improvement, because:it focuses on conformance - with the standards - rather than the achievement of performance outcomes or an organization's real ability to deliver same; and the document-focused model that underpins the traditional approach is at odds with the way that managers actually deliver results.
Between your current level of safety performance and excellent safety performance there is a gap. If you are going to reach excellence, you must bridge that gap. Before you can bridge it, you must identify the basic elements that create it. When I was in charge of training at a large corporation, I regularly had top executives ask me to design training to address a problem they had identified. Often, training was not the right tool to fix their problem, and, as I helped them develop other strategies to address problems, they started to identify problems and solutions more accurately.
Abstract Benchmarking has become a general activity in today's business environment. It permits an apparent understanding of the performance of a business entity in comparison with its peers, competitors and global leaders. As a step towards world-class performance it undoubtedly has its benefits in identifying areas for commendation and areas for improvement. Creating benchmarks for environmental health and safety are key components of a Health Safety Environment Management System. However, there is a need to be cautious in how benchmarking is carried out. Businesses are complex organisms - they operate in an environment where external and internal pressures compete to drive strategy and tactical decisions in a variety of disparate directions. Focusing on a particular area may give and unbalanced view of the performance of the business. Benchmarking needs to be holistic in its approach, giving a clear overview of the performance of the whole business and shows the areas where focus to be given by the management to enhance the performance. It is presumed that companies use their own selection of Key Performance Indicators to measure HSE Performance. However, this paper gives emphasis the importance of benchmarking, Safety KPI's of industry wide accepted which can be used to benchmark their performance against that of the global oil & gas industry, in particular to E&P industry through which safety performance can be accessed regularly and ensures continual improvement.
Abstract Waterflooding through water Injection is one of the most effective secondary method to improve oil recovery. Integrated water injection management comprises managing the performance at the reservoir, the wells and the surface and their interdependencies. Lack of effective management of any of these would pose serious concern on incremental recovery due to water injection. Although, water injection (WI) has been in place for many decades, a comprehensive technique to measure the integrated performance of the water injection due to better subsurface management, and/or well management, and/or surface WIM management is not well-established in the industry. Thus it is very difficult to evaluate and compare overall performance of a WI project with the efficiency of other WI projects. In the current times of limited CAPEX spending, thus a technique is required to evaluate various WI projects under the same yardstick, so as to decide on which project more money need to be spent for better returns. Such yardstick which evaluates each of the WI modules (WIM) of subsurface, wells, facilities WIM helps thus then to consider optimal remedial measures to attain excellence. This paper explains how an easy, doable and effective method to evaluate WI performance was generated with help of Key Performance Indicators of the subsurface, wells and surface facilities for a WI project. This paper reviews the processes which affects the WI performance and identifies Key performance areas (KPA) of influence during Water injection stage. On the basis of merit and impact of each KPA on the overall effectiveness of WI, performance Indexing has been attempted to generate Key Performance Indicators (KPI) in an innovative manner. All KPIs are integrated together with respective weightage factor derived from their individual influence on WI performance into an overall performance indicator. An integrated surface-to-wells-to-subsurface system optimization has been the key consideration during the development of this technique. A worksheet with inbuilt formulae leading to the estimation of all Key Performance Indicators and Overall indicator has been constructed to be used for any WI projects with option of related data inputs. It has been tested on real data of few offshore fields of PETRONAS as sample test and proved to be a valid indicator of WI performance. To test the robustness of the tool it was blind tested by taking out the data of some key injectors in one of the better water flooded reservoirs. This tool has thus proved effective to gauge the performance of a WI project, remains a measure to compare and rank performance with respect to other WI projects. A continuous plot of the KPIs helps to identify the concerned areas for possible improvement. This technique is thus capable of diagnosing all sub-optimal areas within a WI project simultaneously, which when addressed leads to operational excellence and improvement in oil recovery. Recent usage of this tool to rank WI performance of different projects helped to initiate competition between different operators for improvement.
- Water & Waste Management > Water Management > Lifecycle > Disposal/Injection (1.00)
- Energy > Oil & Gas > Upstream (1.00)
- Asia > Malaysia > Terengganu > South China Sea > Malay Basin > Block PM 305 > Angsi Field (0.99)
- Asia > Malaysia > South China Sea > Malay Basin (0.99)