Shell Exploration and Production
A Global Compliance with POSC Standards
Heading towards WITSML
Marco Beringer
Groningen, December 2004 University of Groningen
Faculty of Business Administration Supervisors:
Dr.H.Balsters Dr.Ir.T.D.Meijler
Shell EP Europe:
Supervisors:
Dhr.P.Kemper Drs.J.Kreijger
Marco Beringer
Student number: 1061968 Study:
Technology Management Major: Information Technology Faculty of Business Administration University of Groningen
Starting date:
September 1998 Graduation date:
December 2004
Address/Contact information Fazantstraat 18
7731 ZA Ommen The Netherlands
Email info@marcoberinger.nl Phone +31 6 41558132
Voorwoord
(This preface is purposely written in my native language because my thanks only go to persons who are Dutch.)
Deze scriptie is het eindresultaat van het verrichtte afstudeeronderzoek bij de NAM, gevestigd te Assen. De NAM is een onderdeel van de Shell Exploratie &
Productie (EP) divisie. Tijdens mijn 8 maanden durend verblijf in de afstudeerorganisatie heb ik onderzoek verricht voor het management van het IM Tools & Standards team.
De verrichting van dit praktijkonderzoek diende ter afsluiting van mijn studie Technische Bedrijfswetenschappen, afstudeerrichting Informatietechnologie, aan de Rijksuniversiteit Groningen. Naast het verrichten van onderzoek, toepassen van bedrijfskundige kennis en de gewenning aan het regelmatige werkritme heeft de ervaring met het ‘echte’ (internationale) bedrijfsleven de meeste indruk op me gemaakt.
De resultaten die voortvloeien uit dit onderzoek zijn in eerste instantie bedoeld voor het management van het IM Tools & Standards team. Daarnaast bestaat de doelgroep uit de Portfolio Management & Integration group, dat een cluster is binnen de Shell EP die zich bezighoudt met het globaal managen van Shell EP’s software portfolio en de integratie daarvan in de business. Verder bestaat de doelgroep uit de begeleidende docenten van het onderzoek, medestudenten en alle andere belangstellenden.
Mijn dankwoord wil ik ten eerste richten tot mijn eerste afstudeerbegeleider Dr.H.Balsters voor de goede begeleiding van mijn onderzoek en zijn nuttige feedback. Daarnaast wil ik ook Dr.Ir.T.D.Meijler danken als tweede begeleider en medebeoordelaar. Verder wil ik de heren Peter Kemper en Jeroen Kreijger in het bijzonder danken als begeleiders vanuit de NAM en voor de mogelijkheid die ze mij hebben geboden voor het houden van het onderzoek binnen de organisatie en mij alle ruimte en vrijheid gaven tijdens het onderzoek. De buitenlandse opgedane ervaringen tijdens het onderzoek in Aberdeen en Stavanger zijn voor mij een zeer waardevolle verrijking geweest. Speciale dank gaat natuurlijk uit naar mijn ouders voor hun steun en - niet in de laatste plaats – financiële bijdrage. Zonder hen had ik dit wellicht nooit kunnen bereiken. Als laatste wil ik
‘de jongens’ en andere vrienden en vriendinnen bedanken voor mijn fantastische studententijd hier in Groningen.
Marco Beringer
Management Summary
This thesis is about a global compliance with POSC standards. The research has been initiated by the IM Tools & Standards team of Shell’s Exploration &
Production division and was done over the past 8 months.
The objective of the research is to conduct a feasibility study on a compliance with POSC standards, with the target to identify possible constraints and risks in order to make a value proposition. The research is divided in two phases and each phase has a central research question.
The first phase answers the central research question: Should Shell EP complies with POSC standards? The Petrotechnical Open Standards Consortium (POSC) is an international not-for-profit membership corporation. It is designed to unite industry people, issues and ideas to facilitate EP knowledge, information and data (KID) sharing and business process integration. POSC provides open specifications for information modelling, information management, and data and application integration over the life cycle of EP assets. Their work results in more than 25 standards. The first phase of the research contains a priority-ranking list of these 25 standards. This helps Shell EP to understand, which standards are relevant and which are not. From this phase is concluded that the answer on the first central research question is partially yes, when the Internet Data Exchange Standards are considered. The constraints and risks have been investigated and a plus/minus-analysis and a survey were conducted, which form the basis for the answer.
The findings were based on desk and field research. In this research stakeholders has been asked to ventilate their meanings about POSC and its standards. The composition of the stakeholders is:
Oil companies
Software/Service companies
Governments (DTI in England and the NPD in Norway)
Engineering disciplines (within Shell EPE)
POSC
Almost every contacted stakeholder was enthusiastic about this research and responded on questions, which ensured to get a multiple and reliable view on POSC and its standards. The standard with the highest relevancy/potential is investigated in the second phase, where a value proposition has been made.
The second phase of the research holds the following research question: Is it feasible to comply with WITSML? This phase determines the value of a compliance with WITSML for Shell.
First of all the determination of the value is not quantitative. In general the value can be determined by the difference between the benefits and the costs, but
getting no figures about the costs of applications or services the quantification lies out of the scope of this research. Therefore, this research has a qualitative approach.
Scenarios are constructed to determine the benefits of using WITSML in a projected situation and making a comparison to the current situation. The scenarios are about: data-handling at the (remote) office and data-transfer between Service Company and the Operator. The two major benefits are:
Better data quality
Searching time for KID is cut down
The first benefit is achieved by the fewer available number of data formats. In the current situation there are at least 10 different formats. In the WITSML situation it should be reduced to one. Applications do not support all those formats. For the end-user of the data means that converting and migrating data is a daily task that is time consuming. Converting and migrating data means always a loss of data quality. Besides electronically, data is also available on hard copies.
Manually inputting the data in applications means more possibilities of human errors. Human errors and converting/migrating data can be reduced by using a single format. The second benefit lies in the better availability and accessibility of the data. Currently locating data can be a laborious task. In the WITSML situation the data should be accessed, retrieved or transported from one single datastore.
A third benefit that is not really brought forward - but was highlighted in paragraph 6.2 - is minimizing data duplication through WITSML. People from different disciplines derive various types of information often from the same piece of data. Data sharing is an outcome, when they work with applications based on the same data-format. These benefits should reduce the costs by doing the same work, but more efficient.
As was said that determining the costs lies outside the scope of this research, therefore only the cost drivers are identified in a model. The model in paragraph 7.3 gives insight in the amount of cost drivers. The classification and the categorization should help analysts in determining and making a projection of the costs.
The qualitative value is defined by four determinants: strategic match, competitive advantage, competitive response and a strategic IS architecture. First of all a compliancy with WITSML is in line with key strategies set in Shell’s EP Business IT Strategy 2005-2008. Secondly it can give Shell a temporarily competitive advantage in respect to those competitors who are not WITSML compliant. Thirdly the implementation of WITSML can be a response to keep up with its competitors, who are already WITSML compliant and claim to work more efficiently in comparison to their old situation. Lastly a strategic IS architecture can create additional value for Shell. This year is already decided that an infrastructure will be used, which is compatible with WITSML.
General conclusion of this research is that Shell EP should comply with WITSML.
For recommendations I refer to chapter 10.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction to the research 9
1.1 Approach to the research 10
1.2 Description of the NAM/Shell EP 14
1.3 The Portfolio Management & Integration Group 15 1.4 Description of the Exploration and Production industry 16
1.5 Description of POSC organisation 18
2. Elicitation and analysis phase 20
2.1 Research question (I) 20
2.2 Framework 22
3. Objectives and Background 25
3.1 Target of sharing Knowledge, Information and Data 25
3.2 Advantages 28
3.3 Disadvantages 30
4. Organize knowledge 32
4.1 Stakeholders 32
4.2 Principles of the standards 34
4.3 POSC’s standards 35
4.3.1 Data Management Standards 35
4.3.2 Internet Data Exchange standards 36
4.3.3 Practical EP standards 37
4.3.4 Application Interoperability Standards 38
4.4 Relevancy 39
5. Summary of the elicitation and analysis phase 44
6. Evaluation phase 46
6.1 Research question (II) 46
6.2 Background information: WITSML 48
7. Collecting Requirements 51
7.1 WITSML suppliers 51
7.2 Scenario-Based Analysis 54
7.3 Cost model 58
7.4 Value creation 60
8. Summary of the evaluation phase 64
9. Conclusions 67
10. Recommendations 70
Appendix A (Exploration Surveying and Drilling) Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix B (Specification 1 to 25) Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix C (Questionnaire) Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix D (IT Architecture halfway 2005) Error! Bookmark not defined.
Appendix E (EP Business IT strategy 2005-2008) Error! Bookmark not defined.
Acronyms and abbreviations 72
List of references 73
1. Introduction to the research
Problems arise with data compatibility, when connecting computer systems that were not designed to share data. Interfaces to translate the data represent 25- 70% of the costs of some recent systems. In addition reconciling data becomes necessary, when incompatible data definitions are used, whilst business opportunities are lost from a failure to share data. Staff time is wasted trying to locate and reconcile data. Can data exchange standards overcome these problems?
This thesis is the last part of the study Business Administration/Technology Management. At the NAM/Shell Exploration & Production (EP) Europe location Assen a research has been conducted on a data integration problem.
The initiator for this research is the IM Tools & Standards team from Shell EP.
From the IM Tools & Standards team came the question to examine the need to share and exchange knowledge, information and data (KID) within Shell Exploration and Production in a universal manner on the basis of the standards of the Petrotechnical Open Standards Consortium (POSC). The management also wants a value proposition, when there is a need for a compliance with POSC standards. Finally there must be a proposal with a set of recommendations that will be presented to the Portfolio Management & Integration (PMI) group. This stated problem by the IM Tools & Standards team is quite general, especially when is considered that there are over 25 standards.
This thesis first will focus on the target of sharing KID in combination with POSC standards and recognising the pros and cons. Second, with the help of a stakeholders analysis and a priority ranking list – constructed through a survey and a plus/minus-analysis – a value proposition is made on the most potential standard. Therefore, in this thesis much attention is paid to the meaning of stakeholders. Moreover, these stakeholders consist of experts who have in-depth knowledge about the standards. The motivation for the research context comes from the Requirements Engineering. Requirements Engineering is an iterative co- operative process of analyzing a problem.
This thesis is structured as follows:
This chapter provides an overview of the research. The approach to the research and the research environment will be outlined. The research phases are introduced, which are used to answer the objective of this research and the methodology will be explained.
Chapter 2 outlines the research questions of the elicitation and analysis phase.
Chapter 3 answers the questions: what is the target of KID-sharing and what are advantages and disadvantages of KID sharing in combination with POSC standards? The answers stem from the questions stated in Chapter 2.
Chapter 4 focuses on the stakeholders in this research and presents POSC standards. At the end of this chapter a priority ranking list is constructed as a result of the 25 standards.
Chapter 5 gives a summary of the elicitation and analysis phase. The output of this phase is translated into the central research question, which servers as the input for the next phase discussed in Chapter 6.
Chapter 6 outlines the research question of the evaluation phase. In this phase the standard with the highest relevancy (WITSML) is discussed, with a focus on its value.
Chapter 7 illustrates differences through scenarios on the current situation of exchanging data and on the intended situation when using WITSML.
Also a cost model is presented which can serve as a handhold when implementing the standard WITSML. The last part of this chapter explains where the value lies with a compliancy with WITSML.
Chapter 8 gives a summary of the evaluation phase and concluding remarks are presented.
Chapter 9 provides an overview of the conclusions made from the two phases and answers the central objective.
Finally, chapter 10 presents recommendations and directions for further research.
This chapter is structured as follows; in the first in paragraph 1.1 the approach to the research will be explained. In this paragraph also the conceptual framework and the link to the structure of this paper will be outlined. In paragraph 1.2 NAM/Shell EP will be introduced by a short history, and the present situation will be highlighted. Next in paragraph 1.3 the Portfolio Management & Information group will be briefly presented. The Exploration and Production Industry will be described in paragraph 1.4 to get a better understanding of the working field.
Finally paragraph 1.5 is about the POSC organisation.
1.1 Approach to the research
The given problem introduced by IM Tools & Standards team is twofold. First of all they want to know, if they should comply with POSC standards. If so the second step of the research would be to conduct a value/cost proposition and to workout an implementation plan.
The approach of the research corresponds with the given problem. The research is done in two parts: an elicitation & analysis phase, and an evaluation phase.
Each of the phases has a central research question. The elicitation and analysis phase will answer the first part of the given problem: should Shell EP comply with POSC standards? The elicitation and analysis phase’s output will be the objective
of the evaluation phase. The last step will be a set of recommendations and conclusions and perhaps suggestions for further researchers in continuation of this research.
In the approach to the research it is easy to recognize the various phases of the research. A representation of the framework of the research is shown in figure 1.1.
In this research a relatively new field of Science will be used: Requirements Engineering; which cover all activities involved in discovering, documenting, and maintaining a set of requirements for a computer-based system. Requirements Engineering is concerned with business and system issues. Requirements are descriptions of how a system should behave, application domain information, constraints on the system’s operation, or specifications of a system property or attribute. The term requirements is replaced by the term standards in this research, because standards meet also the definition of requirements. Therefore, this field of science fits in the research.
Requirements engineering and the ‘DOV’-model of De Leeuw [8] will be combined in this research. The ‘DOV’-model stands for Diagnose (D), Design (O) and Change/Implementation (V). The first two phases in the model contain each a central research question. This structure comes from the ‘DOV’-model and will be used, but not the content. The content comes from the Requirements Engineering process, which will be further explained in this chapter. There is a delineation line in the framework, which indicates that the Implementation (V) phase is out of the scope of this research.
For this research, a traditional problem definition as stated by De Leeuw [7] will be used. This problem definition consists of an objective of the research, central research questions and research constraints. The research questions will be presented in the chapters 2 and 6. First the research objective and constraints will be handled.
The research objective is:
To conduct a feasibility study on the - through the IM Tools &
Standards team - given problem with the target to identify possible constraints and risks in order to make a value proposition.
Research constraints
The research will take 6 – 9 months
The results will be descriptive
The results will be a set of suggestions, recommendations and conclusions
The research will be carried out on the basis of various theories from different sciences
The research process will be done in good consultation and co-operation with Shell EP
The value/cost proposition in the evaluation phase will have qualitative approach. Due to the fact of getting no financial figures a quantitative approach lies out of the scope of this research.
External standards will only be discussed in this research. The option of having no standards or internal standards in Shell’s business processes will not be taken into account in any conclusion or recommendation
Data gathering
Having explained what the research objective and the research constraints are, a proposition will be made on the methods of data collection. Two methods will be used to deduct answers: field and desk research. The answers will be supported by scientific theories related to the subject of the research questions. Field research is a form of market research that involves collecting primary data (first hand information). Examples of field research are surveys, interviews, sampling and experiments. The field research contains mainly interviews. This has to be done with people who have expertise on the elements mentioned in the conceptual framework. The advantages of field research are:
If completed properly, the information collected can be more accurate than the information obtained from desk research
The information collected will be recent
The information collected can be kept confidential
The disadvantages of field research are:
Field research is more time consuming than desk research Collecting primary data is harder work
The researcher cannot remain in the office
Desk research is a form of market research, where the information is collected using secondary data (data collected by another person). Secondary data can be found from a variety of sources including the Internet and books. The advantages of desk research are:
It's a quick method of collecting information Desk research is easier than field research
The secondary data is often ready to use or process The researcher often does not need to leave the office
The disadvantages of desk research are:
The secondary data may not be recent It might not be accurate
Sometimes can be hard to find, depending on the subject
When the disadvantages of one method dominate the advantages of the other, the latter will be used. This is a subjective decision that will be made in consultation with the mentors.
In this research, some data are collected through the perceptions of individuals.
Due to the fact that in this research conclusions will be based on these data, it must be interpreted with some caution.
Conceptual Framework
A good requirements engineering process should include four critical activities:
objective setting, background knowledge acquisition, knowledge organisation and collection of the requirements. For the definition of the research questions in chapter 2 and chapter 6 a general process model [6] from the Requirements Engineering will be used (figure 1.2). The first three columns belong to the elicitation and analysis phase, where the fourth column belongs to the evaluation phase.
This model serves as the conceptual framework for this research. This paper is structured around this conceptual framework.
Chapter 3 covers the first two columns
Chapter 4 covers the third column
Chapter 7 covers the fourth column
The blocks in the model are linked together in an iterative way, which means that some parts of this model are interwoven in various paragraphs. Paragraph 1.2 to 1.5 partially covers the second column, where a description is given of the internship organisation and the working field of the internship.
1.2 Description of the NAM/Shell EP
Following the discovery of an oil field near Schoonebeek in 1943 by Exploratie Nederland - a Shell company - Shell and Esso decided to jointly put up the capital for a new oil exploration and production company: Nederlandse Aardolie Maatschappij, or NAM for short. NAM was formed on 19 September 1947 [16].
NAM made the first natural gas discovery in the Netherlands in Coevorden in 1948. Just over ten years later - in 1959 - NAM discovered the famous Groningen gas field near Slochteren - one of the biggest in the world - with original producible gas reserves of around 2,700 billion m³. That discovery also opened the door to offshore gas exploration and production, and in 1961 NAM was the first company in Western Europe to drill for gas in the North Sea. NAM is now the largest gas producer in the Netherlands, with annual production of around 50 billion m³. A little over half of this gas (27 billion m³) comes from the Groningen field and the rest from various smaller fields elsewhere on the mainland (12.5 billion m³) and in the North Sea (11 billion m³). Gas produced by NAM covers around 75% of Dutch demand. NAM also continues to produce oil, around 0.8 million m³ a year or about 4% of the country's total oil requirement (50 million m³). NAM accounts for just under half of the oil produced in the Netherlands (2 million m³). NAM is working for the future. A good example is the underground gas storage facilities that NAM has constructed at Langelo and Grijpskerk, which
enable the NAM to meet demand even on the coldest days. Meanwhile, the search for new gas fields in the Netherlands and under the North Sea continues. On the basis of the currently proven reserves, NAM estimates that the Netherlands still have enough gas for about 25 years - depending, of course, on the rate of consumption.
Presently NAM has its eyes set on Europe. As part of the newly projected Shell Exploration & Production (EP) Europe division, NAM will in the future be extending the application of its specific know-how - the exploration and extraction of onshore gas reserves - to countries beyond the Netherlands. The plans are the result of months of brainstorming about the integration of Shell's European oil and gas activities. In October 2003 the reorganisation was a fact. The implications of the proposals will be further elaborated during the upcoming year by working parties, bringing together representatives of all the Shell subsidiaries and joint ventures concerned. The aim of this latest reorganisation is to make Shell more efficient and effective on the European gas market. The reason for this is that EP the cornerstone of the Shell edifice (accounting for 80% of turnover and profit) is in for a real shake-up. Not just in Europe, but also worldwide. The dozens of national operating units (OU) like NAM, which have traditionally formed EP’s solid base, are to be integrated into five ‘regional’ organisations: Europe, America, Asia Pacific, Middle East, Central Asia and Russia, Africa. For Europe, this means bringing the eight national organisations under one management team. Working in regions is part of the globalisation in Shell Exploration and Production.
The ultimate aim of this globalisation is to have EP activities throughout the world conducted in the same way, using the same technologies, the same IT systems and the same project methods. In the new model NAM will also acquire a role as knowledge centre for so-called 'land operations'. Other affiliates will also be acting as 'Centres of Excellence' in their own specific areas of expertise. This will create a network of Shell subsidiaries and joint ventures in eight European countries, all of which will be able to draw on a shared pool of specialists and know-how. The company also has an in-depth understanding of the application of chemicals in the oil and gas production process, and of 'seismic processing', i.e.
the computer analysis of seismic survey data.
1.3 The Portfolio Management & Integration Group
The Portfolio Management & Integration (PMI) group is a cluster within Shell EP that takes a global approach to managing EP's software portfolios and their integration for the Shell EP business. Started in March 2002, based on recommendations from a Focused Results Delivery team, PMI aims to increase value, received from IT-enabled solutions, to Shell EP companies and Joint ventures (e.g. OU). The need for a central organisation like PMI stems from the realisation that very diverse software portfolios exist across EP. For example, out of 285 applications within the Production portfolio, only 27 applications are used in more than one OU. By rationalising and optimising the technical software portfolios within EP, Shell will maximise the value of the 2000 applications, which comprise the overall EP portfolio. PMI aims to "remove barriers to globalisation",
in line with EP's renewed strive towards globalisation, with the recent implementation of an EP Globalisation project. Globalisation within PMI translates to having well-defined global standards that address the wide variety of local and diverse OU cultures unique to this business challenge.
This organisation seeks to reduce OU costs through global procurement, well- defined portfolio development and global delivery processes. The core of PMI's business focuses on reducing barriers to the transfer of technology and expertise.
By ensuring the ease of use of these technologies, their integration and performance, global portfolios will encourage the uptake of technology and inspire sharing of best practices amongst OUs; combining both Shell-developed and external vendor products.
PMI’s mission is to deliver the best ready-to-use EP software solutions covering the asset lifecycle to maximise business value, enabling Shell to be operator of choice. They try to achieve this with four principles [15]:
Global standardisation to build & leverage global expertise
Customisation to meet diverse business needs and address different levels of sophistication
Integrated portfolios to reduce cycle time and improve decision quality
Ease and joy of use to maximise utilization
1.4 Description of the Exploration and Production industry
The oil and gas industry comprises two parts: the upstream business – the exploration and production sector of the industry and the downstream business – the sector which deals with refining and processing of crude oil and gas products, their distribution and marketing. Companies operating in the industry may be regarded as fully integrated - have both upstream and downstream interests – or may concentrate on a particular sector, such as exploration and production or just on refining and marketing [3].
The Exploration and Production industry - where Shell EP operates - is characterized through contractors and subcontractors. Many parties are involved in the EP lifecycle. In this upstream sector much reliance is placed upon service and upon contractor companies, who provide specialist technical services to the industry, ranging from geophysical surveys, drilling and cementing to catering and hotel services in support of operations. This relationship between contractors and the oil companies has fostered a close relationship – and increasingly – contractors are fully integrated with the structure and culture of their clients.
Before actually producing gas or oil, the lifecycle starts with a project: i.e.
exploration surveying, exploration drilling and evaluation phase. In the first phase to find gas/oil the EP company has to search for subsurface structures of salt layers laid over sandstone by using a technique known as seismic surveying, which is employed on land and offshore. A seismic survey – as illustrated in
appendix A - is the most common assessment method and is often the first field activity undertaken. This method is used for identifying geological structures and relies on the differing reflective properties of soundwaves to various rock strata, beneath terrestrial or oceanic surfaces.
After this phase an exploration well is drilled to show whether the geologists are right and - if they are - whether the gas/oil can be produced economically. When exploratory drilling (see appendix A for a drilling rig) is successful, more wells are drilled to determine the size and the extent of the field. These wells - drilled to quantify the hydrocarbon reserves - are called appraisal wells. The appraisal stage aims to evaluate the size and nature of the reservoir, to determine the number of confirming or appraisal wells required, and whether any further seismic work is necessary. After the evaluation phase - which can last between two to ten years - the production can start.
Having established the size of the oil field, the subsequent wells drilled are called
‘development’ or ‘production’ wells. A small reservoir may be developed using one or more of the appraisal wells. A larger reservoir will require the drilling of additional production wells. Most new commercial oil and gas wells are initially free flowing: the underground pressures drive the liquid and gas up the well bore to the subsurface. The rate of flow depends on a number of factors such as the properties of the reservoir rock, the underground pressures, the viscosity of the oil, and the oil/gas ratio. These factors are not constant during the commercial life of a well, and when the oil cannot reach the surface unaided, some form of additional lift is required, such as a pumping mechanism or the injection of gas or water to maintain reservoir pressures. Also in this phase many different parties are involved in the process. They have routine operations on a production well, which includes a number of monitoring, safety and security programmes, maintenance tasks, and periodic downhole servicing. This phase can last for 20 to 40 years.
The last phase of the lifecycle is the decommissioning and rehabilitation phase.
This phase may involve removal of buildings and equipment, restoration of the site to environmentally-sound conditions, implementation of measures to encourage site re-vegetation, and continued monitoring of the site after closure.
Planning for decommissioning is an integral part of the overall management process and should be considered at the beginning of the development during design, and is equally applicable to onshore and offshore operations.
Moreover the EP industry can be characterized as an information industry. The industry is enormously dependent of data. A lot of knowledge, information and data (KID) has to be shared and exchanged within a phase and with a transition from one phase to another. When these different parties all work on systems based on the same standards, KID can be more easily transferred between the parties. In figure 1.3 you can see a simplified overview of the EP industry with its KID transfer. All phases could be enlarged like the “Production phase”. This enlargement partially shows the transfer of KID between different working- fields/disciplines within a phase.
1.5 Description of POSC organisation
"POSC is a trusted source of geoscience, engineering and IT skills for the EP industry. We are determined to be THE place to come to for collaborative work relating to information sharing in EP. When people want to work together in an open environment to solve a common EP business problem, we want them to instinctively think of POSC [18]."
In today's turbulent business environment, agility and flexibility are critical success factors for exploiting business opportunities. This requires that people want to deliver information systems to support the changing business requirements in a timely manner, exploiting the options to buy commodity software, and to integrate with their systems development, where deemed to be of competitive advantage. A way to achieve this is to have some sort of industry standards for the key building blocks of software delivery, i.e., data model, data exchange, data access, user interface, and inter application communications.
To address the above challenge, the EP industry launched an initiative Petrotechnical Open Standards Consortium (POSC) in October 1990. POSC is an international not-for-profit membership corporation. It is designed to unite industry people, issues and ideas to facilitate EP information sharing and business process integration. POSC provides open specifications for information modelling, information management, and data and application integration over the life cycle of EP assets. The strength of POSC is its status as a neutral forum for collaborative learning and sharing. This environment allows the EP industry to focus on business solutions rather than on data processing problems.
Shell is a member of POSC and is committed to leveraging resources through effective exploitation of POSC deliverables. For example in the past Shell has played a major role in the establishment of the EP Business Process Reference Model and just recently in the Practical Well Log Standards (see Appendix B).
POSC has delivered the standards specifications as planned. However, exploitation is only possible through availability in the market place of software that is POSC compliant.
Organigram
In the paragraphs 1.2 tot 1.5 a picture is formed of the internship and working fields of the research – i.e. NAM/Shell EP, PMI, the EP industry and POSC – are explained. Figure 1.4 is a simplified representation of the organisation. Now having a clear insight in the organisation and working fields of the internship, chapter two will handle the central research question for the first phase, the elicitation and analysis phase.
2. Elicitation and analysis phase
In the previous chapter the motivation for the research is explained and the environment - in which the research is done - is described. To get a clear image of the given problem that plays at Shell Exploration & Production (EP) and on where the focus will be, an elicitation and analysis phase must be done beforehand. Requirements should be discovered during this phase. In this elicitation and analysis phase an answer will be given on the first part of the given problem: should Shell EP comply with POSC standards? In paragraph 2.1 the research set-up (central research question and research questions) will be explained. In paragraph 2.2, the framework of the elicitation and analysis phase will be discussed. In this framework the scope of the research will be explained.
2.1 Research question (I)
The given problem is that Shell EP wants to use information systems based on industry standards (POSC) for data model, data exchange, data access, user interface, and/or interapplication communications. This should facilitate EP information sharing and business process integration within/between Shell and third parties. The purpose of the research is to examine the need to share and exchange knowledge, information and data within Shell Exploration and Production in a universal manner on the basis of the standards of POSC. When this is considered necessary, the following can be asked: what are the transition costs and the value based improvements when there is a POSC compliancy?
The elicitation and analysis phase will end in a definitive research objective for the evaluation phase. The research objective as mentioned in paragraph 1.5 results in the following central research question.
The central research question for the elicitation and analysis phase:
Should knowledge, information and data (KID) within Shell EP and between Shell EP and third parties be shared on the basis of standards of POSC, and which constraints and risks are hereby recognized?
Derived from the central question is a set of research sub questions. In order to answer the central research question, it has been split up in the following research sub questions.
Research questions
For the definition of the research questions the model mentioned in paragraph 1.1 will be used. Each research sub-question will cover one or more blocks out of the three columns.
Question A
The first research sub questions (A) focuses on the given problem. It is important to have a clear insight into the (organisational) objectives of sharing knowledge, information and data. The IM Tools & Standards Team wants to know what the targets, (dis-)advantages and the drivers are for using the POSC standards in the organisation.
The origin of the problem:
What is the target of sharing KID on the basis op the POSC standards?
What are the advantages of KID-sharing in combination with POSC standards?
What are the disadvantages of KID-sharing in combination with POSC standards?
Question B
The second research question (B) focuses on the stakeholders. The drivers of the stakeholders are important to know. Do they see POSC’s right to exist? As a
result of answering these questions a fundamental basis can be made for a proposition to put to PMI Group.
Stakeholder analysis
Who are the stakeholders and what is their stake in the POSC standards (stakeholders’ analysis)?
Question C
The final research sub questions (C) focuses on the POSC standards. To answer the central question, the status quo of the POSC standards has to be described.
The POSC standards are continuously evolving because of – for example - new technologies, revisions of specifications, etc. A priority ranking list will be constructed to determine the relevancy of each individual standard.
Principles of the POSC standards:
What are the principles of the standards?
What is the output and are they all relevant? (Application domain)
2.2 Framework
The framework of the elicitation and analysis phase gives a description of the research, which the central question of the research supports. This is represented in figure 2.2. First of all the elements will be explained. In the figure the delineation-line shows in which the research will be done with its elements: Shell EP, KID, 3rd parties, POSC standards, compliance with POSC and Pros & Cons, Stakeholders.
The Current Situation: Nowadays Shell EP works with its own information management system(s). The knowledge, information and data (KID) are shared and exchanged on systems for example Livelink (electronical data management system), AHA (catalogue system). When Shell EP explores or produces gas/oil, it works together with 3rd parties. Each of these 3rd parties has their own information management systems. When Shell EP and these 3rd parties want to interchange KID, it is a cost- and time consuming process. Because every party involved in the process has its own way of labelling identical things.
The Projected Situation: The preferred situation what Shell EP (and by generalizing the whole industry) wants, is to create an environment in which all parties - involved in the Exploration and Production Industry - operate on systems based on the same standards. This should synchronize the process of sharing and exchanging KID between all parties, which leads to fewer losses of time and costs.
The arrows in figure 2.2 represent the transfer of KID between parties and Shell EP. In the CURRENT situation you can see that the arrows have different dimensions, which implicates that the transfer of KID occurs in different ways
because of the difference in standards used by parties. The Projected situation shows only one type of arrow, which implicates that the transfer of KID is based on one standard.
KID: KID is an abbreviation of knowledge, information and data. Knowledge, information and data represent documents, raw data, reports, etc. When knowledge is mentioned in this paper, it means explicit knowledge. Explicit knowledge is knowledge that can be captured and written down in documents or databases. Examples of explicit knowledge include instruction manuals, written procedures, best practices, lessons learned and research findings. Explicit knowledge can be categorized as either structured or unstructured. Documents, databases, and spreadsheets are examples of structured knowledge, because the data or information in them is organized in a particular way for future retrieval. In contrast, e-mails, images, training courses, and audio and video selections are examples of unstructured knowledge, because the information they contain is not referenced for retrieval. With information is meant a collection of facts from which conclusions can be drawn. KID, knowledge, information and data are interchangeable in certain context in this paper.
Shell EP: Shell EP operates in the Exploration and Production industry worldwide.
Shell EP can be divided in clusters - for example EP-HR, EP-IT, EP-legal - and in five ‘regional’ organisations: Europe, America, Asia Pacific, Middle East, Central Asia and Russia, Africa. Shell EP manages its business on the basis of its Organisation, Processes and Assets and is supported by a number of EP policies, standards, procedures, guidelines and global processes. For this research the focus will only be on Shell EPE with its Operating Units, because of the size of Shell EP. Access to references and resources is limited and therefore it will only be addressed within Shell EPE.
3rd Parties: The 3rd parties are the EP Industry (excl. Shell EP) with who Shell EP collaborates. The EP Industry can be divided in:
Service companies (+ software providers)
Software providers
Competitors
Stakeholders: The (internal and external) stakeholders are the customers, Shell Group NV, Governments (laws and regulations), competitors and partners (contractors and subcontractors). Further in this chapter a stakeholder analysis will be discussed.
POSC (standards): For an explanation of the POSC standards I refer to paragraph 4.3. The consortium will play an important role in the research.
Compliance with POSC: This is a part of the central research question in the elicitation and analysis phase.
Pros & Cons: This is a part of the central research question in the elicitation and analysis phase.
The delineation represents the scope of the research. The scope contains the following elements: Shell EP, KID within Shell EP, the objectives Compliance with POSC and PROS & CONS and a part of the stakeholders. The stakeholders are on the delineation-line because some stakeholders are directly involved in the objectives of the research. Outside the scope of the research are the 3rd parties, KID within 3rd parties and some stakeholders. These elements are indirectly related to the objectives of the research and thereby they do not fall within the scope of the research.
In the next chapters the research questions will be answered. The elicitation and analysis phase ends with conclusions.
3. Objectives and Background
In this stage of the elicitation process the organisational objectives should be established including general goals of the business, the constraints and why the standards are necessary. Furthermore background information should be acquired which includes information about the organisation, the application domain of the standards and information about existing business processes. The background information is interwoven in various previous and following chapters. This chapter will discuss previous mentioned research questions (A) of the elicitation and analysis phase. Per paragraph a research sub question will be answered.
3.1 Target of sharing Knowledge, Information and Data
The EP business is by its nature capital intensive. Many of the activities carried out are to do with measuring, analyzing, studying, evaluating, interpreting, planning, or designing, before any commitment is made to spend large amounts of money. The result of these activities is knowledge, information and data (KID), on which the decision to spend money is based. KID is an intrinsic part of the EP business and represents a critical resource. Since KID is a critical result of activities in this process, and critical input to later activities, ensuring the availability and shareability of data is also a critical aspect of data quality.
What is actually KID-sharing? KID sharing is the process, whereby two or more business parties use a set of KID, where one of the parties is recognized as the creator or supplier of the KID. The primary benefit to share KID between organisations is that it allows all participants to leverage their investments in data development and expanding the range of projects they can undertake without large commitments of resources for creating or acquiring additional data. One must keep in mind: what information is to be shared, with which organisations and which rights do they have in KID sharing? Within the industry performance would increase significantly, if operating companies were able to generate better quality information earlier.
There are five conditions be identified for sharing knowledge, information and data (see figure 3.1). Some conditions can overlap each other. The conditions are: organisational structures, collaboration, business drivers, technological innovation and standards.
The new organisational structure - which is implemented in the Shell EP group - expects that Shell EP companies are going to work closer together. With the new organisational structure within Shell EP the management has made an Operating Model. There are four key principles behind the new EP Operating Model:
Standardise, Share, Simplify and Speed up. The goals of these principles are:
Standardisation is a means of increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the EP Business; in practice it can mean a common globally applied process (for example Capital Allocation), the use of the same tool or system (for example SAP Blueprint), to maximize the use of global processes and tools (create local processes and tools by exception only) and enforce compliance with global standards.
Sharing is a means of creating best practices; in practice it can mean to optimize sharing of expertise or making use of a Global EP Scorecard.
Simplify is a way of “Think Global First”. In practice this should lead to capturing synergies from existing assets, eliminating duplication, assure clarity of governance and management accountabilities and communicate simple (clear globalization story to all stakeholders).
Speed up: Maximize short-term positive impact but ensure no long-term negative harm.
Collaboration is a condition for sharing KID. In the EP industry all the work is based on collaboration. It is not only collaboration between service companies and oil companies, but also between disciplines with an EP company:
petrophysics, geological engineering, drilling engineering, reservoir engineering, etc.
Business drivers are for example:
Update methods of storing and retrieving
Improve quality and confidence
Allow easy access and retrieval
Reduce costs of storing and retrieving
Facilitate easy access for potential partners
And technical innovations and standards can accelerate the process of sharing KID:
Within an organisation when trading properties/assets
Among partners when trading properties/assets
Rapid deployment of functionality of applications
Reduced life-cycle costs of applications
These conditions are well-founded reasons why organisations should share knowledge, data and information.
As said earlier, the industry is enormously dependent of data. Utilizing knowledge, information and data internally and externally to an organisation, whenever and wherever is required. The need to share KID on the basis of industry standards is dual. From the industry, as well from the organisation people foresee a growing need for standardising the exchange of KID and implementing this need. As in 1990 POSC was born with the idea to improve sharing of technical information within and among oil companies, oil field service companies, governments and other players in the industry by making a set of specifications. These specifications are being used in commercial products, industry data repository projects and oil company projects around the world.
Building on this foundation, the current focus is on new project formation and management. In addition, POSC is available to provide technical services to implementers of POSC and related technologies. Maintenance and enhancement of the specifications is an ongoing activity. The utopian idea is that the whole industry will work with POSC standards. Otherwise an organisation can exclude itself from the industry.
The target is all about getting the right KID, in the right place, at the right time.
The right KID is the KID that you need, in order to be able to do your job to the best of your ability. The right place – however - is the point of action or decision.
The right time is, when you (the person or the team doing the work) need it. The goal is to reduce the cost of systems, and increase the effectiveness with which they support the business. Data compatibility is one aspect of achieving this.
Computer systems often cost more than they should, because of the need for interfaces to translate KID shared between them. Also business opportunities can be lost from a failure to share KID. The need to translate data means that users of different systems can often only share data sequentially, and not concurrently.
This can extend the time required for critical business processes. There is a slower response to the need for change in systems. Interfaces cost time as well as money. Interfacing is inefficient and invites errors in the data, which may lead
to inferior business decisions. POSC aims to take this away by making industry specific standards.
It is important, that there is a standardisation body for the EP industry. POSC has struggled in recent years to have support from the industry. A strong commitment from oil companies, software/service companies and authorities is required. POSC facilitates the development of standards. POSC coordinates and promotes the use of standards and shoulders the administration of these standards. If POSC did not exist, the EP Industry would have to invent (or invented) a similar body, because of all the collaboration in the industry where data exchange is essential.
3.2 Advantages
The research sub question that will be handled in this paragraph is: What are the advantages of KID-sharing in combination with standards? During interviews with people within Shell, POSC-members, partners and competitors advantages were revealed in relation to the POSC standards.
Standards make information exchange less expensive and faster, because no converting of KID has to be done. A consistent vocabulary/grammar enhances communication, which lowers the need of translating KID. As KID in the EP industry is very complicated, the use of (POSC) standards should facilitate the exchange of data/information between different companies. This is very important in the EP industry, because a lot of different service companies have to work together for the same oil company and they need to share data for doing the work.
Sharing knowledge, information and data is critical for the operation of oil/gas fields which is characterized by complex technologies, complex processes, and products and services provided by an increasing number of competing industry vendors, suppliers and partners. In the absence of standards such as those provided (or aimed at) by POSC, it is challenging to connect and integrate the various technologies, process steps, supply chain suppliers, partners, etc.
The goal of standardisation is to reduce the cost of systems and increase the effectiveness with which they support the business. Data compatibility is one aspect of achieving this. The compatibility will lead to the following benefits:
Eliminates the need to develop, evolve and maintain internal data models and custom software
Reduce take-up time for new software applications
Lower systems costs to update and maintain duplicate information
Improves the quality, quantity and timeliness of information
Effective business processes through clarification of data ownership
Reduces risk through improved reliability with clear, concise data definitions
Minimize data transfer between software applications or multiple databases
In general standards support much more rapid development of software. In this case state-of-the-art applications can be delivered sooner to the customer. An advantage for the customer is that the use of standards results in healthy competition between software vendors over features, and even interchangeability between software products. Furthermore is the adherence to open standards ensures longevity of data and avoids incomplete proprietary solutions.
People who work with products - which are based on standards - have no problem with the interchangeability of resources. A widely accepted standard allows people to comprehend one or more of the standards and work efficiently even when changing departments or companies. Standardisation allows also bootstrapping: no longer having to deal with lower level issues, software vendors, service companies, operators, etc. can focus on core business and thereby significantly increase value. Furthermore it allows ad hoc chaining of software tools. Vendors may supply key components, but with minimum investment operators can supply their own, rapidly developed software components, which encapsulate the core business aspects or proprietary differentiators.
Some statements made in industry journals, which support the use and the existence of standards in the EP industry.
“At least 10% saving of life cycle costs through better information” ETAP
‘96
“Analysis of offshore engineering activities have shown that more than FIFTY PERCENT of the costs of offshore facility development projects are tied to work processes and information handling that result in documentation” Norsok ‘95
“Engineers use 15-25% of their time to look for and gather data” Fortune 500 Analysis 1989-94,Engineering & Manufacturing Co
A quick conclusion is that the advantages of standards lower the total cost of ownership and connects oil companies, partners, suppliers and etc better.
3.3 Disadvantages
The research sub question that will be handled in this paragraph is: What are the disadvantages of KID-sharing in combination with (POSC) standards? During interviews with people within Shell, POSC-members, partners and competitors disadvantages and/or constraints were revealed in relation to the POSC standards.
One major disadvantage was constantly highlighted during the interviews. It was said that on some occasions the POSC standards could go over the top and become too general and difficult to follow. The academic level of the standards is too difficult to be comprehended. They tend to become too bulky and/or fragmented with the potential of reducing their practicality. This seen problem is grounded on experiences with the early-developed standards that relates mostly to the standards, which are not based on XML. They did not become the defacto standard as supposed. In most cases people also said that it takes too long to establish the standards. This could be a reason for a failure on the adoption. The standards should be fit for purpose and not overcomplicated.
Another downside is that the POSC standards place a greater responsibility on the
“data writer”, which can increase local cost. In general the standards have the potential to reduce total cost. For software vendors it can be difficult to change legacy applications to new standards.
Computer-based information systems are changing competitive conditions in many industries. A major disadvantage - as seen mostly by the EP supplier industry - is the inevitable trend and drive towards ‘commoditizing’. With commoditizing is meant that many of these vendors - if not all - draw a “line in the sand” between the implementation of standards and competitiveness. Their concern is that while standards may help ease integration and interoperability (hence benefiting the users’ work processes), they tend to slowly and surely drive the products and services towards too much commonality, raise the bar too high and ultimately eliminate what most of these vendors have guarded for years as market competitive edge. Competitive edge is what a company seeks to gain from the way it positions a product or service in relation to competitors. So the EP supplier industry shrinks a bit from the implementation of standards because of the potential of loosing its competitive edge. The EP supplier industry are those vendors who sell systems software, middleware for integration, web access, analysis tools, high-end interpretation and modelling applications, economic simulation, etc.
The previous mentioned disadvantage leads to another one. Because of the reticence of software vendors towards the POSC standards, their involvement in the development of standards is sometimes quite limited. This can be a cause for the first mentioned disadvantage. It is important to overcome the software vendor’s lack of commitment for implementing the proposed standards.
A next disadvantage arises - which can be applied inside a company but for sure between companies - when security and/of privacy of information will be threatened. When information is sharable, it can be a concern for people when they loose privacy/security of information, which is perhaps a competitive
advantage. When they do not want to follow sharing standards - when loosing security/privacy or competitive edge - it is a major constraint in the development and acceptation of the standard, unless standards/specifications or the implementation of these standards provides facilities to guarantee privacy in certain cases. Another side of this issue is when privacy rules are taken too far.
The sharing will be hurt. Eight or nine years ago Shell made a decision to create a policy that all data, information and knowledge are presumed sharable unless specifically constrained. Previously the general role was the opposite. Managing the boundary what is public or private sharable is a concern.
One major concern is also the legacy. Enormous amount of existing unorganised KID do not follow standards and is not accessible and/or indexed. So the costs involving in making legacy data sharable are a major constraint in progressing the concept of sharing. But at least it’s believed that new projects begin using the sharing standards and solutions - if the benefits of doing so becomes clear, and is demonstrated - then it will be easier to justify addressing previously created KID.
The major downside is the sea change necessary for most service companies, software vendors, etc. to convert from proprietary solutions to developing revenue models for functioning profitably in the “open” environment of standardisation.
Another downside is that by definition standards can define and specify only what is well known. Thus, standards are often a step or two behind the latest cutting edge technologies. This can be somewhat mitigated by planning on standardising what is well understood first (there is a great deal of that in the EP industry) and providing “hooks” to extend or add customized components in a standardised fashion.
A quick conclusion is a balance. This balance is critical to create a win-win environment for collaboration between suppliers (EP vendors) and the consumers (EP oil companies). This balance can only be achieved by limiting the standardisation effort to areas that are not perceived as encroaching into the competitiveness of the suppliers.
4. Organize knowledge
In this stage of the elicitation process the stakeholders should also be identified and consulted to discover their requirements. The large amount of knowledge, which has been collected, must be organised and collated. This chapter will discuss previous mentioned research questions (B and C) of the elicitation and analysis phase. Paragraph 4.1 will contain a stakeholders' analysis. Paragraph 4.2 will explain the principles of standards. In paragraph 4.3 the POSC standards will be discussed and in paragraph 4.4 the relevancy of these standards will be determined.
4.1 Stakeholders
In this paragraph the stakeholders of the research will be discussed. Various definitions of stakeholders exist, categories of stakeholders are overwhelming and can be confusing. For this research the following definition will be used: those who have an interest in a particular decision, either as individuals or representatives of a group. This includes people who directly or indirectly influence a decision, or can influence it, as well as those affected by it. This definition is still abstract, but gives an idea of what the role of a stakeholder can be. It is important to bear in mind, that there are many categories of stakeholders. They will each have different goals and will try to satisfy their own without recourse to others. There are many theories written about identifying different stakeholders. A model [12] is used that is particularly developed for the science Requirements Engineering.
Approach to identifying stakeholders
In this approach the focus is on interactions between stakeholders rather than relationships. The model identifies:
Baseline stakeholder(s): starting point
Supplier stakeholders: provides information or supporting tasks to the baseline
Client stakeholders: processes or inspects the products of the baseline
Satellite stakeholders: interact with the baseline in a variety of ways.
‘Interaction’ may involve communicating, reading a set of guidelines, searching for information and so on.
Identified as the baseline stakeholder is Shell EPE. Shell EP’s division in Europe is the starting point, because of the work environment of the internship. Shell EPE should be seen as those people who will interact with the software, which is based on POSC standards. They are the users of the systems or the developers who set the requirements.
Supplier stakeholders are the partners of Shell EPE. Both potential and existing partners are included. Software vendors and service vendors fall into this group.
But also oil companies may fall in this group, when Shell works on a project that is initiated by a joint venture with a competitor.
Client stakeholders are the governments who have an active role in acquiring data from oil/gas producers in their territory.
The Shell Group (higher management) and competitors are identified as satellite stakeholders, because they are defining respectively the business drivers and make standard proposals.
Why competitors can be seen as a stakeholder, is because they will have influences on the development of the POSC-specifications. Different parties in the EP industry work on the defining of the specifications, so also competitors of Shell. It is important to understand what their point of view in the POSC standards is. In approaching competitors certain limitations arose. Competitors were never too open in sharing information. They are bound by company legislation and very careful in contacts with their competitors.
Partners in this stakeholder model are those who work together with Shell EP on projects. Partners will be very interested in Shell EP’s compliancy with POSC standards and vice versa. To have an insight in each other’s requirements with respect to the POSC specifications, you can make more fundamental arguments in the compliancy with these specifications.
Cross-national boundaries and legislation inflict upon oil/gas producers and therefore governments are also critical elements in the analysis. For example the government of England and Norway expect from EP companies to get all seismological data that are abstracted from British or respectively Norwegian soil.
Last but not least is the Shell Group that states the higher business goals. The business goals should give direction towards the use of (certain) POSC specifications.
To make standards a success, it is important that well-considered and thorough standardisation incorporating best practices from multiple sources (stakeholders).
4.2 Principles of the standards
What is actually a standard? Or when can something be called a standard? This was quite clear at the beginning of the ‘80s. Something was a standard, when an independent organisation – like ISO (International Standards Organisation), IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) or CCITT (Comité Consultative Internationale de Télégraphe et Téléphonique) – developed, published and administered it. A special interest group usually takes care of the development of standards. Periodically members of these groups sit together to discuss the development of these standards. All members are experts. Sometimes representatives of suppliers are involved in these groups, but mainly people from the industry or with an academic background. The formal and complex procedure to develop a standard is imposed by the standardisation body. In general the
‘product’ of such an approach results in a supplier-independent-standard.
Nowadays there are as many standardisation bodies as standards it selves. Many of these bodies are established and based on collaboration between commercial companies with a mutual commercial interest. WAP – for example – is a standard from the WAP Forum, which is started by Ericsson, Motorola, Nokia and Phone.com. The question is: how independent can a standard be, when it is developed by members who have an importance in the success of their products based on this standard? And is it automatically independent, because of the involvement of several competitors? But there can be more behind it. In this way a dominant company can launch a proprietary product on the market and label it as a standard. It develops – for example – a brand new programming language.
It asks two or more other companies for help and together they establish an organisation with a name that ends on Group, Forum or Consortium. This organisation is then responsible for the rest of the development and administration of the ‘standard’. There are different definitions to label something as a standard to embed this danger. Below is the definition of the ICTU used:
The standards are established on the basis of an open decision-procedure (consensus)
The administration of the standards is in the hands of a not-for-profit organisation, which has free entrance-policy
The standards are published (public domain)
The costs of using standards are low and are not a barrier for accessing the standards
There are now restrictive conditions for the (re-) use of a standard
Following the above criteria of the ICTU POSC’s standards fall into the definition.
POSC's focus is to develop and deliver specifications for EP technical applications
