BIM5 History and Background Update 2014 v2.4

BIM5 Westheimer Energy - New Digital Business Feb 2014
Using Business Intelligence Maturity to Survive Change

Jess B. Kozman Data Management Practitioner, Mua!ala Petroleum " #estheimer $nergy Consultants
Intro!uction y $! $vans, Senior Consultant an! C$%, &e' Digital Business, an! Jess Kozman
Pre(rint o) ac*groun! in)ormation )or 'or*sho( +,o' to survive change in $-P I./ at SMi0s 12th annual
$-P In)ormation an! Data Management Con)erence, 13th 4eruary to 15th 4eruary 3617, 8on!on, Unite!
King!om
htt(9""'''.smi:online.co.u*"energy"u*"e(:in)ormation:!ata:management
INTRODUCTION
Projects in the area of business intelligence for oil and gas Exploration and Production (E&P) IT have long
been the target of efforts to reduce risk and measure performance. Various metrics have been proposed over
the years, from positive indicators of user take-up to negative measures of user complaints. In an environment
where every project or initiative involving geotechnical data has to do two things simultaneously; namely
deliver business value and integrate painlessly into existing workflows, it can often be the way the message of
change is delivered which makes the difference between a successful outcome and back to the drawing board.
When organisations fail to share and align goals with workflows, business culture and capability for change
(Haue et al! 2004), the result can be the failure of an otherwise promising technology for transforming data into
business intelligence.
Today's data management practitioners acknowledge that delivering technology painlessly to support E&P IT
has both an emotional and a practical side to it. Perceived success requires that people feel that a good job
has been done and business success depends on keeping geoscientists and engineers (Petro-Technical
Professionals, or PTP) working effectively. Since business intelligence projects inevitably include a technology
component, analysing and quantifying a team's tolerance for technology change and tailoring implementations
is one way to both minimise disruption and find and leverage internal champions who can reduce the friction of
change. Understanding where an organisation resides and where it is moving on a technology maturity matrix
is a first step toward quantifying tolerance for, and benefits of change. This paper presents metrics adopted
from technology capability maturity models ("r#sby! 1$%$) and expands on early work in E&P that applied the
measurements specifically to the area of petrotechnical data management (D&'ngel# an( )r#y! 2000).
The principles of the Business Intelligence Management Maturity Metrics Matrix Model (BIM
5
) *
SM
have now
been used in diverse projects on a global scale to determine the best strategies for surviving the changes
required by business intelligence projects. No matter how well designed or how much of an improvement a
technical solution may be, technical end users will have to change something about the way they work in order
to realize benefits. Measurable improvements in individual workflows need to be communicated, in the
language of the business. Impacts on everything from IT users with command-line interfaces to the CIOs
continuous view of an SAP implementation need to be considered, along with how the business depends on
the technical environment. Without constant attention both the value and effectiveness of the technical
environment and information on which it runs degrades over time. The impact of this data entropy (Fli*hy an(
+#,ell! 2011) in the absence of managed change can also be measured with a suitable application of the
described model.


Change Management is a science in itself and has spawned a metaphor menagerie visible in any airport
bookstore business section, from rivers and puddles (-#gers#n! 2011) to puzzles (M*"#urt! 1$$%) . There are
reams of papers, books, even cheese shops and melting icebergs dedicated to understand and explaining
change to the reluctant and how to implement change to the management team. This is very useful material
and can be applied in many areas of Oil and Gas. However, practitioners have found much of it to be targeted
at scales and facets of maturity change that may not be effective for technical business intelligence E&P. One
key to success is knowing what kind of change you are managing and which parts of this body of knowledge
will have the most impact, based on the capability and complexity of your organisation and team. The wrong
mix of well-intended change management process can be as damaging as mixing your cheese with your
icebergs.
This paper provides some insight, examples and areas for discussion leading to an improved understanding of
how to survive and thrive in change in E&P IT and how to improve your chances of success in any initiative,
based on successful implementations in real-world case studies of a proven method for measuring capability
and complexity metrics. It leverages first-hand knowledge based on what one client described as "an ability to
manage effectively in an environment of deliberate uncertainty".
HISTORY
The pressures from incursion of large data volumes on geotechnical professions have been recognized since
the early 1970s (W##(lan( et. al.! 1$%/), and have been the subject of continuous discussion and debate since
then. This has spawned a continuing litany of often revisited, but seldom resolved, challenges at industry
meetings and conventions, with a growing need to quantify just how much effectively managing data adds to
the bottom line of extractive resource industries. Describing the volume of data involved in this debate has in
turn created a cottage industry of metaphor mangling and acronym abuse, from the seismic tsunami of the
early 2000s (0alinin*he,! 2000) to the digital explosion (Farr! 2012) of today, from Create-Read-Update-Delete
(CRUD) (H#llan( an( Nash! 2001! Harris#n! 200%), Knowledge-Information-Data (KID) (1un et al.! 2004), and onto the
ubiquitous presence today of Big Data (Farris! 2012). Even discussions of staffing requirements and shortages
in exploration and production (E&P) now regularly refer to an employee cohort by its relationship to the onset
of digital data (-yan! 2012), and the design of many query-based user interfaces for business intelligence reflects
the influence of the Millennial workforce which is comfortable with and expects nearly instantaneous and
unfettered access to mind-bogglingly large volumes of data and information.
As large volumes of digital data began to attract the attention of Information Technology (IT) professionals in
the oil and gas industry, technology vendors developed tools and services designed to manage the flood of
petro-technical data, leveraging technologies such as relational database management systems (RDMS) and
hierarchical storage management (HSM). But some early deployments of what could have otherwise been
effective information management technologies experienced failures, in part because target organizations
failed to share and align data management capability maturity goals with workflows, business culture and
capability for change (Haue et al! 2004). In parallel, the nascent IT discipline was developing management
methodologies for technology resource activities which recognized that organizations were best served by
projects and strategies that proceeded in stages over time (N#lan! 1$%/). This resulted in the concepts behind
Capability Maturity Models (CMM) and some of their early applications to quality control ("r#sby! 1$%$). The
need to carefully match data management technologies in oil and gas organisations to the capability levels of
petro-technical end users was recognized as soon as digital volumes began to dominate high end petroleum
exploration workflows (M*0en2ie! 1$$5). At the same time studies were also acknowledging the lack of high level
visibility for data management personnel and budgets (Feineman!1$$2), and the difficulty of quantifying the value
of data management as compared to higher profile interpretation activities (+#we! 1$$5). To this day, measuring


and justifying the value of data and information management remains a popular but elusive goal for most large
petroleum organizations. In this paper we trace the history and development of a robust tool for evaluating,
measuring and tracking the impact of business intelligence management strategies on the bottom line of oil
and gas exploration and production. The tool has a documented history of usage, widespread application to
various data types and geographic locations and plays, and a scientific and statistical basis that makes it
essential for data management practitioners in todays business driven climate for data management. It also
provides an unprecedented opportunity to quantify and predict the relationship between appropriate data
management strategies and the bottom line of exploration and production, by providing a measure of financial
impact for specific facets of business intelligence capability.
It is a defining characteristic of oil and gas exploration that the adoption of industry standard methodologies
can lag by years (Wallis! 2011) behind other similarly data-driven industries, such as medical,
telecommunications and aerospace. Thus the introduction of maturity models as a way of measuring and
quantifying the evolution of data management capabilities in the petroleum industry dates back only slightly
more than a decade (D&'ngel# an( )r#y! 2000), despite the introduction of the concept in other technology
intensive processes, especially software development, more than a decade earlier (Hum3hrey! 1$4%).

4igure 1. $arly version o) the Data Management Maturity Mo!el ;)rom DAngelo and Troy, 2000 <
The earliest Data Management Maturity (DMM or DM
2
) models were often adopted and adapted from other
industries and were inherently one-dimensional linear scales, describing a progression of stages. They tended
to be used mostly as a descriptive tool (1we(en! 200$). But even the earliest versions for the Exploration and
Production (E&P) data streams in oil and gas acknowledged the complexity of petro-technical data, including
multiple facets to be considered when establishing the levels (although technology remained the dominant
one) and pointing out that the higher levels may be commercially unachievable in the petroleum industry.


When correlations could be established and published between capability maturity and standard measures of
productivity (H#llan( an( Da,is! 1$$%), maturity levels took on the new significance of being associated with
financial metrics and the emphasis shifted from maturity, which carried connotations of a scorecard with
positive and negative values, to capability, which implies more of a continuum of improvement. This allowed for
comparisons with other applied continua in oil and gas data management such as master data management
strategies. The refinement of the models has continued with the addition of additional capability facets and
customization of the models for specific geotechnical data types (D#ugherty et. al.! 2010), and incorporation of
observational characteristics, levels and facets from other industries (Fin5elstein! 1$$26 M75el7!et al! 200$6 8(h# an(
8r(! 200$). There has also been discussion of how to use maturity levels as a predictor of value extraction from
systems and technology, specifically in reference to seismic volumes (15ar5e an( 1he99er! 2004).

4igure 39 $=am(le o) a maturity mo!el !evelo(e! )or a s(eci)ic (etroleum !ata stream ;)rom Dougherty et. al., 3616<
In 2008 it was recognized that maturity alone was not a good predictor of financial performance, and that
capability levels needed to be matched to the complexity and organisational goals of specific operators. An
early matrix was created by comparing capability levels with complexity metrics. The first complexity metrics
were calculated by analyzing the number of unique or redundant steps in data management processes for
specific data types (Hawtin an( Fumey-Humbert! 200:). These metrics used oil and gas specific variations of
standard Six-Sigma SIPOC (Supplier, Input, Process, Output, and Consumer) models that had been previously
applied in production optimization (Barber et. al.! 200%). The patterns from these mappings were compared with
other scale-independent allometric laws (1ait#! Watanabe! Iwamura! 200%) and a main sequence was recognized
and described that tracked the development of data management capability as it evolves with organisational
complexity (0#2man an( Hawtin! 2004). This moved the existing DM
3
(Data Management Maturity Model) to a DM
4

methodology (Data Management Maturity Matrix Model). The importance of power-law effects in evaluating
organisational dynamics has since been validated by other research ('n(riani an( M*0el,ey! 200$).The current
methodology has been refined with the addition of more facets to compute, weight and rank the complexity
metric, and the expansion to include not only data management but the impact of information, knowledge, and
business intelligence ()h#mas! 200$). The current methodology is formally identified and recognized as a
Business Intelligence Management Maturity Metric and Matrix Model (BIM
5
), and recognizes maturity as a
combined metric plotted by comparing capability and complexity on a two-dimensional matrix. This also allows
each axis to be deconstructed into multiple facets, or for additional analysis dimensions to be considered, such


as geographic locations, data stream types, or functions within the organisation. It also allows for tracking
changes over time as a fourth dimension, in an interesting parallel with geophysical data cubes of a similar
nature.

4igure 59 4irst (resentation o) an oil an! gas in!ustry !ata management maturity matri= 'ith a com(le=ity metric
;)rom Kozman an! ,a'tin, 366><, use! as a gui!e to +?uic*:'in/ im(lementations.
The BIM
5
analysis takes into account the fact that less complex organisations can take flexible approaches that
would result in chaos in more complex groups. Conversely, more complex organisations can invest in defining
more precise practices whose imposition would paralyse less complex ones. These differences mean that
understanding the most effective strategies for moving between current and desired levels of capability for a
given organisation requires a focus on resulting performance metrics as well as on individual implementation
details. Laws of allometrics show that the best performers will cluster around a single curve, the main
sequence and around islands of stability on that curve. But all these organisations have underlying dynamics
that allow comparison across different sizes ("D'! 2011). Calculation of the complexity metric serves as a useful
comparator with perceived and statistical peer groups as most of the dimensions can be obtained from public
domain sources such as industry rankings and annual reports, even when a complete data management
assessment has not been performed. However, a thorough, rigorous and industry standard site assessment
methodology remains the most accurate way of determining and validating an organisations capability and
complexity levels.

DIMENSIONS AND FACETS OF THE MODEL
On the BIM
5
matrix, capability is plotted along the horizontal axis, with increasing capability to the right. The
vertical axis is plotted increasing upward using a metric based on selected, weighted and ranked values
reflecting complexity of assets (Willigers an( Ma;#u! 2010), size of product output (<latts! 2010), resource base
()#u*h! 2012), geographic spread (1ass#n an( Bl#mgren! 2011), technology adoption rate and strategy (Daneshy an(
1h##5! 2004), Petro-Technical Professional (PTP) Intensity (1*hlumberger Business "#nsulting! 2012), or data entropy
(Fli*hy an( +#,ell! 2011) of the organisation. PTP Intensity is an especially interesting and useful metric as it has
already been shown to have a broad positive correlation to production growth rates, but the addition of BI
capability as a dimension allows us to identify observational characteristics that further discriminate between
high and low growth companies .


The combination of a weighted and ranked position on both axes yields a matrix location that can be used to
compare between members of a peer group, business units involved in different types of plays, or geographic
locations. Changes in the position on the matrix can also be used to track the evolution of data management
metrics over time, the trajectory of change, and the level of change management that is required to support
projects designed to implement those changes.
A main sequence is derived by defining the cluster of best performers based on financial performance metrics
such as Return on Invested Capital (ROIC) or other industry metrics such as internal rate of return, reserves
replacement rate, or finding and development costs (Ernst an( =#ung! 2011). The performance metrics are
deliberately selected to be scalable across organisation size, and so reflect a true independent variable from
the matrix. The selection and weighting of these facets can be tuned based on an organisational self-
determination of facet focus or a fully implemented site assessment.

4igure 79 Pre!icte! relationshi( et'een (osition on the maturity matri= an! )inancial (er)ormance, ase! on
allometric e=am(les )rom organizational stu!ies.
Impetus to correlate position on the matrix with financial performance metrics came in part as a result of
studies showing that maturity models for project management were being used reactively, were more
qualitative than quantitative, and were not accurate predictors of project success (Br##5es an( "lar5! 200$). Since
the positioning of an organisation on the matrix is a snapshot at any given point in time, the change
management requirements (0#tter! 1$$:6 "am3bell an( H#llan(! 200%) and trajectory (M*>ahan! 2004) between
present and future positions can be used to differentiate between tactical and strategic implementations. The
matrix can also be devolved into individual facets along each access, or aggregated into views that compare
across locations, disciplines, or data streams. Quick win tactical and strategic projects can be identified and
developed to move the organisation closer to the main sequence and to previously identified islands of
stability. The anticipated initiatives are then matched against the appropriate and required level of change
management to design communication strategies and increase the probability of defining business success
through measurable improvements (Eggert et. al.! 2011). Since the capability metrics and complexity metrics are


correlated with changes in an organisations core activities and assets, respectively, the degree of change
along each axis helps to define the change trajectory and can be used to select a change management
methodology and level best suited to the project or program designed to implement the change.
The current version of the standardised assessment methodology is supported by several BIM5 assessment
tools. This technique recognises maturity as a combined metric plotted by comparing capability and complexity
on a two-dimensional matrix. Data management capability reflects the way in which oil and gas asset teams
use the facets of Process, Resources, Organisation, Metrics and Technology (PROMT) to improve their data
management performance, although for comparison across multiple organisational types, some configurations
use a revised set of facets of Standards, Technology, Organisation, Resources and Metrics (STORM). These
facets can be mapped to international standards such as the DAta Management Association (DAMA
International) DM-BOK2 (Data Management Body of Knowledge) (which describes functional areas and
organisational context. They also correlate to industry surveys such as those conducted by Common Data
Access (CDA) and Schlumberger in the U.K. for North Sea Operators, or broader international benchmarks
such as the one recently referenced by Halliburton in its Landmark Smart Vision methodology (2013 17th
PNEC Conference with Berry Petroleum). Unlike linear and one-dimensional capability models, in the BIM5
methodology, capabilty is one dimension of overall maturity, and is plotted on a horizontal axis from a Base
level of I to a Critical Level of V (Note that to accommodate the findings from some asset teams and
companies, a capability level of Regressive had to be added below the Base level, organisations at this level
actively discourage progress in the use of data management). Capability is generally measured by identifying
observable characteristics that place the organisation along the continuum of Levels, or by surveying end
users of data about their perceptions of how the organisation's approach to data management can be
described.
The vertical axis of Complexity is a quantitative measure of the challenges for data management that increase
with an exploration and production organisation's size and reach, that is they are dependent variables that
scale with size. In the BIM5 model the same 5 facets are measured to provide a meaningful matrix for
correlation. Many measures for complexity facets can be gleaned from public domain sources, such as size of
reserves and volume of production, operating budget, staffing levels, and number of operating assets or
geomarkets. The number and overlap of applications and steps on industry standard Supplier-Input-Process-
Output-Consumer (SIPOC) workflows and the volume of the data itself also contribute to the Complexity
Metric. While some traditional descriptions of "big data" have identified volume, velocity and variety as facets of
complexity, the BIM5 model develops quantitative measurements, where the required metadata statistics can
be obtained, of data propagation, proliferation, pervasiveness, and persistence.
Capability can be measured by performing an assessment at client offices and interviewing members of staff in
order to gain an overall consensus as to the state of the companys data management operation. Complexity
can be assessed by examining such characteristics as staff numbers, Supplier-Input-Process-Output-
Consumer (SIPOC) process steps as defined by Six Sigma methodologies, data volumes, and technology
redundancy and overlap. The complexity metric can also be weighted by the number and diversity of operating
areas covered in the assessment.
Past analysis of a number of other oil and gas organisations reveals that results on the matrix tend to cluster
on a curve where capability and complexity are optimally balanced. This curve has been termed the main
sequence by analogy with allometric laws such as those from organisational dynamics and productivity
optimisation. As a company matures, it can be expected to progress along this main sequence as it develops
both in terms of complexity and capability. The BIM5 methodology differs from other maturity models in that it
provides a correlation with financial performance metrics that are scale-independent. Neither data
management maturity nor data management complexity can be correlated with better financial performance or


more effective or efficient oil finding, but an organisation's position relative to the main sequence on the BIM5
matrix does provide such a correlation.
An assessment can determine the current position of an organisation on the matrix relative to both perceived
and identified peer groups, and can help select quick win projects to move to a position correlated with
optimum financial performance. In this way, after decades of struggling with the business value case for data
management, organisations that benchmark themselves against the BIM
5
model can show quantitative
correlation with corporate performance metrics such as production replacement rates and reserves acquisition
cost. Recent application of the model shows that movement toward positions on the main sequence can also
be correlated with improvement in scale-independent financial performance metrics such as finding costs,
return on investment, and PetroTechnical Professional Efficiency (1*hlumberger Business "#nsulting! 2012).
APPLICATIONS OF THE MODEL
A recent application of this methodology to a set of mergers and acquisitions (M&A) compared across two data
intensive resource plays ()h#m3s#n! 2012), showed that M&A between organisations with more disparity in
position on the BIM
5
model require a larger investment in change management in order to produce the same
gain in financial performance when large amounts of data need to be assimilated. This is an aspect of M&A
due diligence that is frequently overlooked in the oil and gas business but can be mitigated by the use of clean
teams, groups of third party service providers working under legal protocols and confidentiality agreements
that can access and review competitive petro-technical data, information technology, and business intelligence
systems and processes that would otherwise be off-limits after the announcement of M&A activity. This avoids
surprises in issues of data storage, accessibility, technology interoperability, access or formatting that can
derail a quick merger or acquisition after regulatory approval (-#use an( Frame! 200$).

@ master !ata management maturity mo!el 'ith )acets an! (resent an! )uture state in!icators ;)rom @mal)i, 366A<
Recent and historical work has also included and focused on applying capability maturity models to metadata
(?ha#! 2005) and to the broader area of scientific data across disciplines ("r#wst#n an( @in! 2010). Assessing an
organisation on a capability model is now accepted as part of the process for building a business case for a
data management implementation ('mal9i! 200$), and an increasing gap in maturity as organisations evolve has
already been noted. A 2011 Gartner group survey of 321 organisations in a mix of industries across North


America, Europe and Asia Pacific highlighted the adoption and use of data integration tools. The survey asked
a set of questions about tool usage and functionality, level of satisfaction, and relationships with the technology
providers. In describing the increasing gap between leading versus lagging organisations in data management
capability ()h##! Frie(man an( Beyer! 2012), the study noted that those organisations treating data management as
a strategic competency, and those approaching it in a reactive, tactical fashion, were growing further apart.
Those that were focused solely on running and growing their business with a focus on implementing data
integration architectures as cheaply as possible and optimized for narrow and obvious needs were seen to be
lagging on capability competency measures, and they can be identified on the BIM
5
model as falling either
above (complexity leveraged), or below (capability leveraged) the main sequence. They generally rank in the
third or fourth quartile of financial performance metrics. On the other hand, those organisations that had
observational characteristics that showed a focus on effective data integration capabilities as a way to
transform the business and deliver entrepreneurial impact were consistently placed closer to the main
sequence and islands of stability, with financial metrics in the top two quartiles. The best performers of these
organisations in a BIM
5
analysis cluster around the island of stability that represents proactive capability,
sustainable complexity, and top quartile financial performance, supporting the correlations demonstrated by the
model.

Clustering o) )inancial (er)ormance metrics on the BIM
B
mo!el, constructe! )rom an organisational (eer grou( in a
!ata intensive resource (lay, sho'ing the main se?uence an! islan! o) staility


SCIENTIFIC BASIS OF THE MODEL

.ren!s o) some allometric relationshi(s use! to (re!ict the original ehavior o) organisations on the BIM
B
mo!el
While the early speculation was that the financial performance metrics of organisations would increase
monotonically along a main sequence, the clustering provided by analysis of peer groups in similar geologic
plays showed a more complex behavior. The clustering indicates that increasing either capability or complexity
exclusively, and without consideration of the change trajectory, is correlated with a decrease in financial
performance. Thus an organisation can lose operational efficiency by attempting to implement programs that
emphasize disproportionate gains in technology capability without supporting complexity of resource allocation,
for example. Likewise, organisations that implement statistically more complex processes without increasing
the capability of their internal standards are also more likely to move downward in performance metrics. The
analysis also shows that there is more tolerance for a range of complexity levels at an optimum level of
capability; the main sequence envelope for top quartile financial performance has its largest vertical dimension
on the BIM5 model at capability Level IV. The linear trend of the highest value performance envelope, like its
allometric analogs, also has a positive slope of less than 1, meaning that rapid changes in complexity can be
more financially risky than similar changes in capability because they are more likely to move the organisation
outside the top performance envelope, or further from the main sequence. The goal of the BIM
5
modeling and
analysis should always be to fit the required change trajectory and change management methodology to the
requirements of the organisations present and desired future position on the model. The most recent
implementations of the model allow fairly prescriptive choices of strategies based on best practices and
lessons learned from the model, validating its predictive value. The final recognizable allometric trends on the
BIM
5
matrix are most closely related visually and statistically to those in complex product development,
robustness in social and organisational networks, and productivity curves for innovation ('n(riani an( M*0el,ey!
200$).


@llometric relationshi(s et'een resource (o(ulation size an! (ro!uctivity out(ut in organisational net'or*s ;)rom
Chen an! Jiang, 366A < sho'ing similar statistical tren!s to )inancial (er)ormance grou(s on the BIM
B
mo!el
The utility of the BIM
5
methodology is validated by the expanded usage of capability models in other areas of
petroleum operations. Similar models are now part of the offshore technology safety culture promulgated by
the UK Health and Safety Executive (Fleming! 2000). The financial industry has been refining its version of a data
management maturity model with the same goals of improving risk management and operational efficiency
(0ent#uris! 2011). Some of their defined facets have been incorporated into the oil and gas model to improve
correlations with financial performance indicators based on applications to oil and gas financial accounting
systems. If the history of this initiative is duplicated in the petroleum industry, a data management maturity
model could become the basis for regulatory reporting requirements (An(erw##(! 2012).

@ !ra)t sa)ety culture maturity mo!el )rom the UK o))shore (etroleum in!ustry ;)rom Fleming, 2000<
DAMA International, the worldwide organisation for data professionals, uses a maturity model as a basis for
assessments of data management effectiveness and monetization ('i5en! 2011). Recently the DAMA data
management education framework has been taken up by the Public Petroleum Data Management (PPDM)
organisations Petroleum Education Task Force (PETF), and a capability model was presented in Australia as
part of an initiative to determine the requirements for developing data management as a recognized discipline
and profession in the petroleum industry ("urtis! 2012). The capability levels for a profession are adapted from
work done in the medical field (A. 0. <arliament! 2000). The Project Management Institute (PMI) also uses an
Organisational Project Management Maturity Model (OPM3) to translate project management strategies into
successful project outcomes. The organisational standard uses interlocking elements of knowledge,


assessment and improvement to complete a set of deliverables under the Project Management Body of
Knowledge (PM-BOK) that address organisations, people and projects (<r#;e*t Management Institute! 2005).

@ re(resentation o) an organisationCs maturity y !omain an! (rocess im(rovement stage ;)rom ProDect Management
Institute, 366B< on an %rganisational ProDect Management Maturity Mo!el ;%PM5<

Descri(tion )rom the Pulic Petroleum Data Management organisation o) the alignment et'een ca(aility levels )or
a !iscli(line or (ro)ession an! those on a Data Management Maturity Mo!el ;)rom Curtis, 2012, use! y (ermission<
Other projects have focused on data governance using a maturity model as a metric for improvement (IBM Data
>#,ernan*e "#un*il! 200%). These analyses identify multiple categories for classifying capability, as well as
transition layers between maturity levels. These layers are compared with the outcomes, enablers, core and
supporting disciplines of data governance domains to identify measurable milestones that track an
organisations advancement on a capability model.


Some o) the categories ;)acets< inclu!e! in the IBM Data Eovernance Maturity Mo!el ;)rom IBM Data Eovernance
Council, 366F<.
BENEFITS OF USING THE MODEL
The benefits of being able to measure the value of various data governance best practices with a quantifiable
Key Performance Indicator (KPI) such as the position on the BIM
5
model has been recently validated with a
survey of over 50 organisations. Over half of the respondents indicated that lack of stakeholder buy in was a
challenge to implementing a data governance program, and that determining key metrics to measure success
was either challenging or very challenging. That same survey found that the statistical strength of the
correlation between adopting various best practices and a reduction in the challenges was almost 75% higher
for establishing KPI metrics than for the next ranked best practices (0##3man! 2012).

Statistical correlation o) the im(act o) KPI metrics on !ata governance ;)rom Koo(man, 3613<
There are other useful methodologies for tying capability models to the selection of strategies for
implementation of technology programs, including some designed specifically for digital oilfield initiatives (B#bst
an( H#llan(! 2004). There have also been statistical studies showing that data quality as measured by Six-Sigma
methodologies improves with data management capability levels (-yu! <ar5 an( <ar5! 200:).


@ !ata ?uality management maturity mo!el ;)rom Ryu, et al., 2006<
G&%.$9 BIM
B
is a Service Mar* o) #estheimer $nergy Consultants, 8t!.


REFERENCES:
AIKEN, P., 2012, MONETIZING DATA MANAGEMENT, DAMA EDUCATION DAY 2012, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF BUSINESS,
DATABLUEPRINT, HTTP://WWW.DAMA.ORG/FILES/PUBLIC/IA_PE_2011_NOVEMBER_MONETIZING%20DATA%20MANAGEMENT%20(EDW).PDF
ANDRIANI, P. AND MCKELVEY, B., 2009. FROM GAUSSIAN TO PARETIAN THINKING: CAUSES AND IMPLICATIONS OF POWER LAWS IN ORGANISATIONS,
ORGANISATIONSCIENCE, VOL. 20, NO. 6, NOVEMBERDECEMBER 2009, PP. 10531071, ISSN 1047-7039 , EISSN 1526-5455 09 2006 1053, DOI
10.1287/ORSC.1090.0481, 2009 INFORMS. HTTP://WWW.BILLMCKELVEY.ORG/-0-PUBS%20TO%20BE%20ADDED%20AS%20HOT-LINKS--
TEMP%20FILE/2009%20ANDRIANI,%20MCKELVEY(09)-FROM%20GAUSSIAN%20TO%20PARETIAN%20THINKING.PDF
AMALFI, F., BHATTACHARJEE, D., AND NAIDOO, T., 2009. BUILDING THE BUSINESS CASE FOR MASTER DATA MANAGEMENT, ORACLE THOUGHT LEADERSHIP
WHITE PAPER, ORACLE CORPORATION, REDWOOD SHORES, CALIFORNIA, USA, http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/insight/business-case-mdm-wp-
171711.pdf
BARBER, A., SHIPPEN, M.E., VELZQUEZ, J.C., HERNNDEZ, A.M.G., KLUMPEN, H.E., MOITRA, S.K., MORALES, F.L., RAPHAEL, S., SAUV, B., SAGLI, J.R.,
WEBER, M., 2007: OPTIMIZING PRODUCTION FROM RESERVOIR TO PROCESS PLANT, SCHLUMBERGER OILFIELD REVIES, WINTER 2007/2008,
http://www.slb.com/~/media/Files/resources/oilfield_review/ors07/win07/optimizing.pdf
BOBST, B. AND HOLLAND, D., 2008: IS YOUR COMPANY GAINING THE BEST BUSINESS VALUE FROM YOUR DIGITAL ENERGY PORTFOLIO?, MAY 2008, HOLLAND
& DAVIS, HOUSTON, TEXAS, USA, http://www.digitaloilfieldvalue.com/images/pdfs/pdfs/pdffile3pt4i.pdf
BROOKS,N. AND CLARK, R., 2009: USING MATURITY MODELS TO IMPROVE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRACTICE, POMS 20
TH
ANNUAL CONFERENCE, ORLANDO,
FLORIDA, USA, PRODUCTION AND OPERATION MANAGEMENT SOCIETY, http://www.pomsmeetings.org/confproceedings/011/fullpapers/011-0288.pdf
CAMPBELL, M. AND HOLLAND, D., 2007. CHANGE MANAGEMENT AND THE DIGITAL OILFIELD, DIGITAL ENERGY JOURNAL, APRIL 2007, ISSUE 6, PP. 12-13,
http://www.digitalenergyjournal.com/issues/dejapr07.pdf
CHEN, Y., AND JIANG, S., 2009: AN ANALYTICAL PROCESS OF THE SPATIO-TEMPORAL EVOLUTION OF URBAN SYSTEMS BASED ON ALLOMETRIC AND FRACTAL
IDEA, CHAOS, SOLITONS & FRACTALS, VOLUME 39, ISSUE 1, 15 JANUARY 2009, PAGES 4964, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chaos.2007.01.130
COMMON DATA ACCESS, LTD. (CDA), 2011, THE BUSINESS VALUE CASE FOR DATA MANAGEMENT, OIL & GAS UK AND SCHLUMBERGER,
http://www.oilandgasuk.co.uk/datamanagementvaluestudy/
CROSBY, PHILIP B. (1979): QUALITY IS FREE, MCGRAW HILL. ISBN 0-451-62247-2.
CROWSTON, K. AND QIN, J., 2010, A CAPABILITY MATURITY MODEL FOR SCIENTIFIC DATA MANAGEMENT, ROCEEDINGS OF THE 73RD ASIS&T ANNUAL MEETING
ON NAVIGATING STREAMS IN AN INFORMATION ECOSYSTEM - VOLUME 47, ARTICLE NO. 124, AMERICAN SOCIETY FOR INFORMATION SCIENCE, SILVER SPRINGS,
MARYLAND, USA, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1920331.1920496
CURTIS, T., 2012: HOW THE DATA MANAGEMENT PROFESSION IS GROWING, PPDM BRISBAND DATA MANAGEMENT SYMPOSIUM, AUGUST 2012, BRISBANE,
QUEENSLAND, AUSTRALIA, https://www.ppdm.org/event/view/archived/44
DANGELO AND TROY, 2000: INTEGRATED DATA MANAGEMENT IMPROVES RETURN ON INVESTMENT, OIL AND GAS JOURNAL, VOL. 98; ISSUE 31, 31-JUL-2000.
http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-98/issue-31/drilling-production/integrated-data-management-improves-return-on-investment.html
DANESHY, A. AND SHOOK, M., 2004: ISSUES STIFLE TECHNOLOGY ADOPTION, E&P MAGAZINE, FEBRUARY 4, 2004, HARTENERGY, HOUSTON, TEXAS, USA,
http://www.epmag.com/EP-Magazine/archive/Issues-stifle-technology-adoption_2589
DOUGHERTY, M. KOZMAN, J, MASKELL, J., AND RIPLEY, T., 2011, ENABLING A SUSTAINABLE SPATIAL DATA MANAGEMENT STRATEGY, OILIT WHITEPAPER,
WESTHEIMER ENERGY CONSULTING, http://www.oilit.com/papers/1009_01_WECWhitepaper_WEC10.5.pdf
EGGERT, J., TIDEMANN, S., AND KOZMAN, J., 2011, COMMUNICATING THE VALUE OF DATA MANAGEMENT TO NON-TECHNICAL STAKEHOLDERS, PRESENTED AT
15
TH
ANNUAL PETREOLEUM NETWORKING AND EDUCATION CONFERENCE ON PETROLEUM DATA INTEGRATION, INFORMATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT
HOUSTON,TEXAS, USA, http://www.idealeadership.com/userfiles/file/Communicating%20the%20Value%20of%20Data%20Management%20to%20Non-
Technical%20Stakeholders.pdf
ERNST & YOUNG, 2011, GLOBAL E&P BENCHMARK STUDY, (NIJOKA ET AL.), ERNST & YOUNG GLOBAL LIMITED, U.K.,
http://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/2011_Global_EP_benchmark_study/$FILE/Global%20E-P%20benchmark%20study%202011.pdf
FARR, S., 2012: DATA EXPLOSION CASUALTIES UNKNOWN, DIGITAL OILFIELDS SUMMIT 2012, LONDON, U.K.,
http://www.digitaloilfieldsevent.com/Event.aspx?id=801208
FEINEMAN D. R. (1992) DATA MANAGEMENT: YESTERDAY, TODAY AND TOMORROW IN PRESENTATION TO THE PETEX 92 CONFERENCE (25 NOVEMBER 1992,
LONDON),


FINKELSTEIN, A., 1992. A SOFTWARE PROCESS IMMATURITY MODEL, ACM SIGSOFT SOFTWARE ENGINEERING NOTES VOL 17 NO. 4, OCTOBER 1992, PAGES
22-23
FLEMING, M., 2000: SAFETY CULTURE MATURITY MODEL, THE KEIL CENTRE FOR THE HEALTH AND SAFETY EXECUTIVE, OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY REPORT,
2000/049, EDINBURGH, UK, CROWN COPYRIGHT 2001, ISBN 0 7176 1919 2, http://www.hse.gov.uk/research/otopdf/2000/oto00049.pdf
FLICHY, P. AND LOVELL, T., 2011: DIGITAL OIL FIELD CREATES REAL-TIME DATA FIRE HOSE, E&P MAGAZINE, HARTENERGY, MARCH 1, 2011, HOUSTON,
TEXAS, USA, http://www.epmag.com/Production-Drilling/Digital-Oil-Field-Creates-Real-Time-Data-Fire-Hose_78382
HAQUE, S.M.M., GREEN,R. AND KEOGH, W., 2004. "COLLABORATIVE RELATIONSHIPS IN THE UK UPSTREAM OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY: CRITICAL SUCCESS AND
FAILURE FACTORS, IN PROBLEMS AND PERSPECTIVES OF MANAGEMENT", 1/2004,
http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228769464_Collaborative_relationships_in_the_UK_upstream_oil_and_gas_industry_critical_success_and_failu
re_factors/file/60b7d519ca878d7a17.pdf
HARRISON, R., 2007, TOGAF 2007 EDITION (INCORPORATING 8.1.1), THE OPEN GROUP, PP. 103-125,
HAWTIN, S., ABUSALBI, N., BAYNE, L. AND CHIDWICK M. (2002) THE DATA INTEGRATION SPECTRUM PRESENTED AT AAPG CAIRO 2002
HAWTIN AND FUMEY-HUMBERT, 2006: LESSONS LEARNED FROM SITE ASSESSMENTS, PRESENTED AT THE THE 10
TH
ANNUAL PNEC PETROLEUM DATA
INTEGRATION CONFERENCE, HOUSTON, TEXAS, USA, APRIL 2006.
HOLLAND, D. AND CAMPBELL, M., 1997, CHANGE MANAGEMENT PUTS DATA TO WORK, THE AMERICAN OIL AND GAS REPORTER
HOLLAND, W. AND NASH, B., 2001,
HUMPHREY, W., 1987: "CHARACTERIZING THE SOFTWARE PROCESS: A MATURITY FRAMEWORK". IEEE SOFTWARE 5 (2): 7379. DOI:10.1109/52.2014.,
TECHNICAL REPORT CMU/SEI-87-TR-11, ESD-TR-87-112, THE SOFTWARE PROCESS FEASIBILITY PROJECT AND THE SOFTWARE PROCESS/EXTERNAL
OPERATIONS PROGRAM, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING INSTITUTE (SEI), CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY (CMU), PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA, USA; U.S.
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER (DTIC), CAMERON STATION, ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, USA; NATIONAL TECHNICAL
INFORMATION SERVICES (NTIS), U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, SPRINGFIELD, VIRGINIA, USA. JUNE 1987 http://www.sei.cmu.edu/reports/87tr011.pdf
IBM DATA GOVERNANCE COUNCIL, 2007: THE IBM DATA GOVERNANCE COUNCIL MATURITY MODEL: BUILDING A ROADMAP FOR EFFECTIVE DATA GOVERNANCE,
OCTOBER 2007,
http://www-35.ibm.com/services/uk/cio/pdf/leverage_wp_data_gov_council_maturity_model.pdf

KALININCHEV, A., 2000: THE SEISMIC TSUNAMI, 2000 GEOQUEST FORUM, APRIL 2000 OIL IT JOURNAL, http://www.oilit.com/2journal/2article/0004_10.htm
KENTOURIS, C., 2011, SIFMA TECH 2011: QUANTIFYING HOW MATURELY YOU MANAGE DATA, SECURITIES TECHNOLOGY MONITOR, 15-JUN-2011,
SOURCEMEDIA, NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, USA http://www.securitiestechnologymonitor.com/news/edm-data-management-maturity-model-28187-
1.html
KOOPMAN, S., 2012: DATA GOVERNANCE, 2012, INFO-TECH RESEARCH GROUP, http://www.infotech.com/research/planning-the-project-for-a-master-data-
governance-program
KOTTER, J.P., 1996: LEADING CHANGE,HARVARD BUSINESS PRESS, 1 SEP, 1996 - 208 PAGES
KOZMAN, J. AND HAWTIN, S., 2008. THE MAIN SEQUENCE: MATCHING DATA MANAGEMENT CHANGE TO THE ORGANISATION, PRESENTED AT 12TH ANNUAL
PETREOLEUM NETWORKING AND EDUCATION CONFERENCE ON PETROLEUM DATA INTEGRATION, INFORMATION AND DATA MANAGEMENT, HOUSTON, TEXAS,
USA., www.cltechconsulting.com/pdf2010/PNEC12-paper0503_2_JBK.pdf
LOWE, D.J.,1995 : THE GEOLOGICAL DATA MANAGER: AN EXPANDING ROLE TO FILL A RAPIDLY GROWING NEED, GSL.SP.1995.097.01.10, GEOLOGICAL
SOCIETY, LONDON, SPECIAL PUBLICATIONS JANUARY 1, 1995, V. 97, P. 81-90, http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/97/1/81.refs
MKEL, J., VANIALA, R., AND AHONEN-RAINIO, P, 2009. THE ROLE OF USER ORGANISATIONS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL SPATIAL DATA
INFRASTRUCTURE, ARTICLE UNDER REVIEW FOR THE INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SPATIAL DATA INFRASTRUCTURES RESEARCH, SPECIAL ISSUE GSDI-11,
SUBMITTED 2009-03-01
MCCOURT, W., 1997. "DISCUSSION NOTE: USING METAPHORS TO UNDERSTAND AND TO CHANGE ORGANIZATIONS: A CRITIQUE OF GARETH MORGAN'S
APPROACH", ORGANIZATION STUDIES, 1997, 18/3 PP. 511-522, EBSCO PUBLISHING, 0170-8406/97 0018-0018,
http://www.profjayrfigueiredo.com.br/gon_ac_10.pdf
MCGAHAN, A.M., 2004. HOW INDUSTRIES CHANGE, HARVARD BUSINESS REVIEW, OCTOBER 2004, HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL PUBLISHING CORPORATION
MCKENZIE,A.A., 1995: A HYDROGEOLICAL DATABASE FOR HONDURAS, DOI: 10.1144/GSL.SP.1995.097.01.19, GEOLOGICAL SOCIETY, LONDON, SPECIAL
PUBLICATIONS JANUARY 1, 1995, V. 97, P. 157-162, http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/97/1/157.abstract


NOLAN, RICHARD (JULY 1973). "MANAGING THE COMPUTER RESOURCE: A STAGE HYPOTHESIS".COMMUNICATIONS OF THE ACM (ASSOCIATION FOR COMPUTING
MACHINERY) 16 (7): 399405.DOI:10.1145/362280.362284, http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=362284
ODHO, M. AND ORD, R., 2009. UNDERSTANDING AND OPTIMIZING YOUR FIRM;S DATA MANAGEMENT CAPABILITIES USING MATURITY MODELS, LAKEFRONT
CONSULTING DATA MANAGEMENT WHITE PAPER, http://www.lakefrontdata.com/style/LakeFront_Consulting_EDM_Maturity_Model_Jan_2009.pdf
PLATTS, 2010. PLATTS TOP 250 GLOBAL ENERGY COMPANY RANKINGS, PLATTS, THE MCGRAW-HILL COMPANIES INC., COLUMBUS, OHIO, USA,
http://www.platts.com/Top250Home#
PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, 2005: ORGANISATIONAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL, PROJECT MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE, INC., NEWTOWN
SQUARE, PENNSYLVANIA, USA, http://eng.mft.info/UploadedFiles/gFiles/cd9a1c903438439.pdf
RODEN, R., M. FORREST, AND R. HOLEYWELL, 2012, RELATING SEISMIC INTERPRETATION TO RESERVE/RESOURCE CALCULATIONS: INSIGHTS FROM A DHI
CONSORTIUM, THE LEADING EDGE, 31, 1066-1074.

ROGERSON, A. M., 2011. "RIVERS AND PUDDLES: METAPHORS FOR EXPLAINING THE NEED FOR CONTINUOUS CHANGE AND DEVELOPMENT IN MODERN
ORGANISATIONS". 25TH ANNUAL AUSTRALIAN AND NEW ZEALAND ACADEMY OF MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE (ANZAM 2011) (PP. 1-1). NEW ZEALAND: ANZAM
http://ro.uow.edu.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1050&context=gsbpapers

ROUSE, T. AND FRAME, T., 2009: THE 10 STEPS TO SUCCESSFUL M&A INTEGRATION, BAIN & COMPANY INSIGHTS, NOVEMBER 4, 2009, BOSTON,
MASSACHUSETS, U.S.A., http://www.bain.com/Images/BB_The_10_steps_to_successful_M_and_A_integration.pdf
ROUSSET ET AL., 2011, TECHNICAL TALENT SHORTAGE COULD BEGIN TO LIMIT GROWTH , SCHLUMBERGER BUSINESS CONSULTING, JOURNAL OF PETROLEUM
TECHNOLOGY, JUNE 2011, PP 46-49, http://www.spe.org/jpt/print/archives/2011/06/13TalentTech.pdf
RYAN, F. J,, 2012.UP & COMING, THE OIL AND GAS MAGAZINE, http://theogm.com/upandcoming/frankryan/
RYU, K-S., PARK, J-S., AND PARK, J-H., 2006: A DATA QUALITY MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL, ELECTRONICS AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS RESEARCH
INSTITUTE JOURNAL, VOL.28, NO.2, APR. 2006, PP.191-204, http://etrij.etri.re.kr/Cyber/BrowseAbstract.jsp?vol=28&pg=191
SAITO, Y.U., WATANABE, T., AND IWAMURA, M., 2007: DO LARGER FIRMS HAVE MORE INTERFIRM RELATIONSHIPS?, PHYSICA A: STATISTICAL MECHANICS AND
ITS APPLICATIONS, VOLUME 383, ISSUE 1, 1 SEPTEMBER 2007, PAGES 158163, SELECTION OF PAPERS PRESENTED AT ECONOPHYSICS COLLOQUIUM 2006 AND
THIRD BONZENFREIES COLLOQUIUM, HELD AT INTERNATIONAL CHRISTIAN UNIVERSITY, TOKYO, JAPAN, 23 NOVEMBER -- 25 NOVEMBER 2006,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2007.04.097, http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378437107005110
SASSON A. AND BLOMGRE, A., 2011: KNOWLEDGE BASED OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY, Research Report March 2011, BI Norwegian Business School,
Department of Strategy and Logistics, Forskningsrapport ISSN: 08032610,
http://web.bi.no/forskning/papers.nsf/0/f025a647fbc5759dc1257871004ae50e/$FILE/2011-03-Sasson&Blomgren.pdf
SCHLUMBERGER BUSINESS CONSULTING, 2012. SBC 2011 OIL & GAS HR BENCHMARK, SCHLUMBERGER LIMITED, PARIS. SUMMARY PRESENTATION:
http://www.sbc.slb.com/Our_Work/Consulting_Expertise/Organisation_Talent_Management/~/media/Files/HR_Forum/2011%20SBC%20HR%20Forum
%20Presentations/SBC%202011%20HR%20Benchmark%20Report.ashx

SKARKE, G., AND SHEFFER, E., 2004: MAXIMIZING TECHNOLOGY INVESTMENT IN E&P DATA MANAGEMENT THE LEADING EDGE, JANUARY 2004, V. 23, NO. 1,
PP. 26, http://tle.geoscienceworld.org/content/23/1/26.full
SUN, S.Q., WU, S., SLOAN, R., XU, J., AND YAN, R., 2004, AN INTEGRATED GLOBAL KNOWLEDGE-INFORMATION-DATA SYSTEM FOR GEOLOGICAL ANALOGS,
AAPG INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND EXHIBITION EXTENDED ABSTRACT, CANCUN, MEXICO, OCTOBER 24-27, 2004,
http://www.ccreservoirs.com/pdf/An%20Integrated%20Global%20Knowledge-Information-Data%20System%20for%20Geological%20Analogs.pdf
SWEDEN, E., 2009, DATA GOVERNANCE PART II: MATURITY MODELS A PATH TO PROGRESS, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF STATE CHIEF INFORMATION
OFFICERS, GOVERNANCE SERIES, MARCH 2009, LEXINGTON, KENTUCKY, U.S.A., http://www.nascio.org/publications/documents/NASCIO-
DataGovernancePTII.pdf
THOMAS, P.J., 2009: DATA INFORMATION KNOWLEDGE WISDOM, http://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/06/11/data-information-knowledge-wisdom/
THOO, E., FREIDMAN, T., AND BEYER, M.A., 2012. THE STATE OF DATA INTEGRATION IN 2012, 13-DEC-2011 ID:G00226297, GARTNER, INC. STAMFORD,
CONNECTICUT, USA, http://lp.pervasive.com/Gartner-Stateof-DataIntegration.html
THOMPSON, G., 2012: THE UNCONVENTIONAL RESOURCES ENERGY REVOLUTION IS ASIA PACIFIC NEXT?, AAPG INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE AND
EXHIBITION, SINGAPORE, SEPTEMBER 2012, PLENARY SESSION, http://www.aapg.org/singapore2012/documents/ICE2012AnnouncementLowRes.pdf
TOUCH OIL AND GAS, 2012. TOUCH TOP 100, TOUCH BRIEFINGS, TOUCH GROUP PLC, http://www.touchoilandgas.com/top100.cfm


U.K. PARLIAMENT, 2000: SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY SIXTH REPORT, HOUSE OF LORDS SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOOGY COMMITTEE PUBLICATIONS,
PUBLICATIONS ON THE INTERNET, SESSION 1999-2000, http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld199900/ldselect/ldsctech/123/12301.htm
UNDERWOOD, S., 2012: EDM COUNCIL PROMOTES DATA MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL AS INDUSTRY STANDARD, A-TEAM GROUP,
REFERENCEDATAREVIEW.COM, BLOG | AUGUST 1, 2012 - 3:05PM, http://www.referencedatareview.com/blog/edm-council-promotes-data-management-
maturity-model-industry-standard
WALLIS, D., 2011: DATA MANAGEMENT = BETTER MANAGEMENT - HOW THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY CAN IMPROVE THROUGH STANDARDISATION, OIL AND GAS
TODAY PODCAST, OIL AND GAS IQ, A DIVISION OF IQPC,NEW YORK CITY, NEW YORK, USA, http://www.oilandgasiq.com/strategy-management-and-
information/podcasts/data-management-better-management-how-the-oil-and/
WILLIGERS, B.J.A. AND MAJOU, F., 2010: CREATING EFFICIENT PORTFOLIOS THAT MATCH COMPETING CORPORATE STRATEGIES, SPE-129259, COPYRIGHT
2010, SOCIETY OF PETROLEUM ENGINEERS, PREPARED FOR PRESENTATION AT THE SPE HYDROCARBON ECONOMICS AND EVALUATION SYMPOSIUM HELD IN
DALLAS, TEXAS, USA, 89 MARCH 2010, http://www.palantirsolutions.com/Palantir/media/Palantir/Library/Willigers-and-Majou-SPE129259-Abstract.pdf
WOODLAND A. W., ALLEN P., BICKMORE D. P., ET AL. (1973) RESEARCH IN THE GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES: A CONSULTATIVE DOCUMENT COMPRISING REPORTS
FROM ELEVEN NERC GEOLOGICAL SCIENCES WORKING PARTIES, REPORT OF THE WORKING PARTY ON DATA PROCESSING IN GEOLOGY AND GEOPHYSICS, THE
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT RESEARCH COUNCIL PUBLICATIONS SERIES B 7, PP 17.
ZHAO, X., 2005, META DATA MANAGEMENT MATURITY MODEL, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT ONLINE MAGAZINE, INFORMATION MANAGEMENT AND
SOURCEMEDIA, INC., OCT 1, 2005 1:00AM ET, http://www.information-management.com/infodirect/20051007/1038827-1.html

BIM5 History and Background Update 2014 v2.4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIM5 History and Background Update 2014 v2.4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

BIM5 Westheimer Energy - New Digital Business Feb 2014

Using Business Intelligence Maturity to Survive Change

You might also like