Free Standard AU & NZ Shipping For All Book Orders Over $80!
Register      Login
The APPEA Journal The APPEA Journal Society
Journal of Australian Energy Producers
RESEARCH ARTICLE

A METHOD FOR CONDUCTING A 'COMPLETE PROCESS' WORKFLOW ANALYSIS

B. Toelle and J. Lingley

The APPEA Journal 40(1) 596 - 602
Published: 2000

Abstract

Many companies within the exploration and production industry have recently begun performing workflow studies with in-house personnel, or in collaboration with consulting groups that have the required expertise. While in-house studies often yield good results, outside consultants specialising in these types of studies can often recognise a broader range of workflow-related issues. There are many benefits companies realise from conducting these studies. Complete and periodic reviews of the E&P processes being conducted allow companies to determine whether or not they are using the 'State of the Science' methodologies needed to maintain a competitive lead. Information obtained during a workflow study helps a company's management to develop or adjust existing plans for effectively combining existing personnel, technology and data.

Workflow studies may be approached in a number of ways. While some address specific portions of a company's workflow, such as its data flow, others seek rapid benefits, or 'quick hits'. The various types of workflow studies all have a place in the process re-engineering arena. However, one type, the 'complete process workflow analysis', offers companies the opportunity to solve the greatest number of process oriented issues.

This type of study follows a specific pattern and starts by identifying main business drivers and objectives. Additional steps include the review of existing 'planned workflows', determining the actual workflow, analysis and issue identification, developing a 'recommended workflow', and educating company personnel in the new 'recommended' process. It is this 'complete process workflow analysis' that is discussed in this paper.

https://doi.org/10.1071/AJ99039

© CSIRO 2000

Committee on Publication Ethics


Export Citation

View Dimensions