Management of Change

Quality Improvement Process

Ted L. Caudill, PE

Global Process Safety Coordinator

Marathon Oil Company

"Process Safety - Protecting People,

Environments and Assets“

Agenda

� Intro to Marathon Oil Corporation (brief)

� Business Case for MOC

� History of MOC at Marathon

� MOC Process

� Current MOC Statistics

� Quality Improvement Process

� Acceptance and Impact

� Incident Trends

2

Intro to Marathon Oil Corporation

� Marathon has been in the E&P

business since 1887.

� Marathon's exploration

activities are focused on adding

production to existing core areas

(the U.S., Equatorial Guinea and the

North Sea) and developing potential

new core areas (Iraqi Kurdistan

Region and Poland). The Company

also holds ownership interests in oil

sands leases in Canada.

3

EP_Map_2011.jpg

� Marathon's production operations supply liquid hydrocarbons and natural gas

to the growing world energy markets.

� http://www.marathonoil.com/

Business Case for MOC

� MOC is intended to ensure all changes to a process are properly reviewed and

hazards introduced by the change are identified, analyzed, and controlled prior

to resuming operation.

� Industry has witnessed numerous fires, explosions and fatalities resulting from

the implementation of changes with little or no actual engineering design and

hazard review.

� The MOC process “forces” consultation of planned changes with a variety of

disciplines prior to approval to execute the change.

4

History of MOC at Marathon

� North Sea operations began using online MOC management system in 1984

� Gulf of Mexico began using an in-house MOC management system in 2000

� North America rolled out a MOC process beginning in 2005, which was

adopted by the Gulf of Mexico

� Central Africa adopted the North American model in late 2005

� Norway implemented the North Sea system in 2007, but switched to the North

American model in 2010

� Today, all operations use a consistent electronic MOC management system

(OSYS KMS), with the exception of operations in the North Sea

� Almost 12,000 MOC requests have been processed

5

What is MOC ?

� Management of Change (MOC) is a corporate standard process that

Marathon follows to:

� Ensure that changes are adequately described and evaluated by

appropriate subject matter experts

� Ensure that management provides informed approvals - both for

construction and again for startup

� Ensure that workers in the affected area are adequately notified

� Ensure that operating procedures, maintenance procedures, and

documentation are updated

� Ensure that a pre-startup safety review is performed to help

ensure safe startup

What is KMS ?

� KMS is web-based electronic tool used to enter- and track

management of change requests (MOCs) and recommendations

(RECs)

� KMS tracks change requests as they pass from person to person for

hazard analysis, approval, implementation, and startup.

What is KMS ?

� Because KMS is web-based, all you need to run this software is

Internet Explorer 6 or 7

� Since all Marathon laptops and desktops have Internet Explorer, all

can run KMS – no software installation is necessary.

KMS Work Flow

Proposal

is

enteredHazards

are

evaluated

Management

approves for

construction

Construction

takes place

Pre-Startup

Safety

Review

Management

approves

startup

Post-

Startup

tasksThis

step

will be

going

away

Current MOC Statistics

10

� Each operating area’s

MOC statistics are

reported monthly

� Open

� Added

� Closed

� Overdue

� North American MOC

Dashboard (partial)

Core Evaluation Checklist

� Core Evaluation checklist was once uniform across NAPO …

11

Core PSSR Checklist

� … And so was the Core PSSR checklist:

12

Norway’s Impact

� Norway wanted their own versions of Core checklists: different English

wording that worked better for them

� To accommodate Norway, each Asset team was given their own copies of Core

checklists

� As a result, each Asset team could now change their Core checklists …

� … and proceeded to do so to improve both MOC value-add and audit scores

13

MOC Audits

� MOC audits began finding consistent problems:

� Long questions were only being partially answered

� Awareness training was not being assigned

� Drawings were not being updated

� Temporary changes were being completed before the original change had been

removed

� Root causes for these issues began to surface:

� User attention spans are not up to the challenge of multi-clause task assignments

� Simplified task wording assumed that users would be more insightful than they have

proven to be in actual practice

� Change coordinators began to deal with these root causes:

� Splitting up 1 complex question into 2 simpler questions with guidance

� Specific reminders for tasks that are often forgotten

14

Quality Improvement Process

� Purpose

� Post implementation, it was determined that not all operating areas were adept at planning work and executing management of change

� A QIP was initiated to communicate expectations and level performance

� Summary

� A team consisting of the process safety coordinator, change management coordinator, process engineer, operations representative, and procedural specialist was created

� A checklist has evolved which consists of ten evaluation questions regarding the management of change review

� One MOC request is randomly selected each month from three operating areas

� The team reviews the MOC and provided documentation and evaluates the MOC against the ten questions

� An email is prepared summarizing the review and communicating the results

� Each operating area has set specific goals regarding their performance

15

Quality Improvement Process, continued

� MOC Selection Criteria

� MOCs are chosen at random according to the following characteristics:

– The MOC must have been completed within the previous month. If no MOCs with that

characteristic are available, an MOC that has been completed in the previous quarter may

be chosen or an MOC that was marked as “Ready for Start Up” in the previous 30 days can

be chosen.

– The MOC must have been initiated in the previous 6 months. If no MOCs with that

characteristic and the previous characteristic are available, the time window for initiation

may be extended.

� In all MOCs during the evaluation and Pre-Startup Safety Review, comments

that indicate a follow-up action is necessary require a follow-up action to be

assigned. If no follow-up action is assigned, it is assumed the action did not

occur and the original item was closed out on a promise.

16

Quality Improvement Process, continued

1. Is the technical basis of the proposed change adequately defined? The following

must be described:

• What the change will be,

• Where the change will take place, and

• Why the change is needed.

The following should be described:

• When the change will happen and

• Who will do the work.

17

� Evaluation Questions

Quality Improvement Process, continued

� Evaluation Questions, continued

18

2. Was the safety review conducted by personnel with appropriate

experience? Did it address the safety impacts associated with the change? A

safety professional must have evaluated the change.

3. Was the environmental review conducted by personnel with appropriate

experience? Did it address environmental impacts associated with the

change? For NAPO, an Environmental HES professional must have

evaluated the change.

4. Was the hazard evaluation completed by personnel with appropriate

experience, competence and/or technical authority? Did the evaluation

sufficiently address the impact of the change?

Quality Improvement Process, continued

� Evaluation Questions, continued

19

5. Are approval team member(s) qualified to approve the change? Approval

team should be accountable for the quality of the evaluations.

6. Were process safety information (examples: P&IDs, Well Logs, MSDS,

equipment file, etc) updates addressed in either the evaluation or PSSR?

Was process safety information updated as needed? If no process safety

updates are required, the change should state this

7. Were operating procedures updated before start-up or determined

they could be updated after start-up and an after start-up action

assigned? If no operating procedures are required or no operating

procedures should be updated, the change should state this in either

the evaluation or PSSR.

Quality Improvement Process, continued

� Evaluation Questions, continued

20

8. Were maintenance procedures (examples: inspections and testing, PM’s,

etc) updated? If no maintenance procedures are required or no maintenance

procedures should be updated, the change should state this in either the

evaluation or PSSR.

9. Was the PSSR completed prior to start-up? Did the PSSR include a physical

inspection of the equipment to ensure the installation is as specified? If start-

up occurred prior to PSSR completion, the MOC should state the reason why.

10.Are employees affected by the change notified of and/or trained on the

change prior to start-up? The MOC must document who was notified

and/or trained and when. Names or positions with dates are required to

get credit.

Acceptance and Impact

� Audits initiated in 2010

� Poor performance and low scores

� Clarity of expectations

� Training issues

� Frustration

� Performance Goals established in 2011

� Operating areas set targets

� Accountability at the supervisory level

� Re-training efforts

� Greater buy-in and focus

21

Acceptance and Impact, continued

22

Incident Trends

23

� No direct correlation between higher quality MOCs and fewer incidents, but:

� Serious process safety events continue to decline – to the point that we are

evaluating alternative metrics

� Less serious process safety events and near misses are also declining, but

emphasis is placed on reporting (162 in 2010, 60 in 2011 YTD)

Questions

24