EP Project Charter OpenWells2.3

WIT Resource Group

OpenWells Evaluation

Project CharterJune 12, 2006Version 2.3

Prepared for:Chris Graves - Director, E&P IT

Alan Delp – Manager, E&P Systems & FacilitiesTy Watson – Director, Piceance Valley

Prepared by:Pamela Blair

WIT Resource Group

OpenWells 04/15/23Project Charter Version 2.3

WIT Resource Group

The Project Charter is a formal agreement between the creators and consumers of project deliverables that establishes the purpose, participants and direction for a project. The Project Charter will be used as the basis for Project Plans and Change Management. It is a living document and will be updated throughout the life of the project. The components of the Project Charter are: Project Overview, Opportunity Statement, Impact Statement, Constraints and Assumptions, Project Scope, Project Objectives, Project Approach and Project Organization. The Project Charter does not include the Project Plan. Plans should be published separately.

OpenWells 04/15/23Project Charter Version 2.3

WIT Resource Group

Table of ContentsProject Overview.......................................................................................................................................1

Opportunity Statement.............................................................................................................................1

Impact Statement......................................................................................................................................2

Risk & Mitigation Matrix.........................................................................................................................3

System Functionality................................................................................................................................4

Gap Analysis.............................................................................................................................................5

Constraints and Assumptions..................................................................................................................6

Constraints..........................................................................................................................................................6

Project Scope............................................................................................................................................6

Domain of Study.................................................................................................................................................6

Domain of Effort.................................................................................................................................................7

Project Completion Criteria.....................................................................................................................7

Project Justification.................................................................................................................................8

Benefits.................................................................................................................................................................8

Costs.....................................................................................................................................................................9

Project Approach....................................................................................................................................11

Project Organization..............................................................................................................................12

Project Charter Acceptance...................................................................................................................14

Exhibit “A”.............................................................................................................................................15

Hardware Configuration/Requirements................................................................................................15

Exhibit “B”.............................................................................................................................................16

OpenWells Implementation Tasks.........................................................................................................16

Exhibit “C”.............................................................................................................................................19

Training Breakdown by “Type”.............................................................................................................19

Exhibit “D”.............................................................................................................................................20

OpenWells Summarization of Business Drivers.....................................................................................20

OpenWells - i - 04/15/23Project Charter Version 2.3

WIT Resource Group

Project OverviewThe Project Overview provides a brief summary of the entire Project Charter. It may provide a brief history of the events that led to the project, an explanation of why the project was initiated, and a description of project intent and identifies the original Project Owner.

This project was officially transitioned from Dana Elkind to Pamela Blair on May 10, 2006. The transition summary and all project artifacts for reference are located http://wmstutadmin01/EPSC/EPITProjects/default.aspx .

Upon conversation with Chris Graves, Alan Delp, the scope of the project charter was unclear and required re-clarification. It was decided that the project charter would include a business case to determine feasibility of moving forward with the OpenWells Implementation. This Project Charter intends to document the business case for moving forward with the replacement of the DIMS application with OpenWells before year end, 2006, as DIMS will need to be eventually replaced given Landmark’s decision to discontinue this product and upgrade to OpenWells. The project charter will address:

Tasks and activities required to implement OpenWells

Gap analysis identifying current functionality of DIMS vs. OpenWells

OpenWells enhancement list

Time and cost needed to implement OpenWells

Risk & Mitigation Table

Summary and Recommendation

LOE: The planning phase of this project was initiated by a Letter of Engagement (LOE), submitted by Dana Elkind and dated April 4, 2006, whose objective was:

Identify the working relationship between Williams and Landmark that would include each group’s role, action items, time line and cost

A review of the size of the project, including data quality assurance, modification of the user interface to match Williams work methods, creation of output reports, the conversion process, training, and continuing support

Costs and benefits for the proposed upgrade/replacement

The project owner for this initiative is Alan Delp, Manager of Systems &Facilities.

Opportunity StatementThe Opportunity Statement identifies the most significant business reasons for performing a project. This may include a vision for future project deliverables, a list of anticipated features, a list of expected advantages and the identification of the intended customers for project deliverables.

The business currently uses DIMS used for operations reporting, communications and data management By implementing the Open Wells application, improvement can be realized in the following areas:

OpenWells Page 1 04/15/23Project Charter Version 2.3

http://wmstutadmin01/EPSC/EPITProjects/default.aspx

WIT Resource Group

Improved User Interface Improved Field Office Transfer Utilization of Crystal Reports to create output reports Improved iWell Files interface Improved security A common database schema that is shared with other Landmark products that include DSS, Compass, and

TOW. One database for all these applications means improved data integrity and the integration of modules for the sharing of information

Impact StatementImpact Statement identifies the influence the project may have on the business, operations, schedule, other projects, current technology and other applications.

Stakeholder Areas Reason/Impact

CBM Field Engineering Team Current DIMS users; will require training and ramp up time of new system usability

CBM Office Personnel Current DIMS users; will require training and ramp up time of new system usability

Piceance Field Engineering Team Current DIMS users; will require training and ramp up time of new system usability

Piceance Office Personnel Current DIMS users; will require training and ramp up time of new system usability

E&P Service Center Support of new application will result in increased volumes; increase in Remedy ticket submittals

E&P Systems & Facilities Management Scheduling for testing activities on current equipment

Production Services Responsible for data management and report distribution

Land Department Receives daily summary report by region

Joint Venture Partners Generation of partner reports, daily drilling reports


WIT Resource Group

Risk & Mitigation MatrixRisk Impact

(H,M,L)

Risk Mitigation StrategyMitigated

Not Mitigated

1. Mapping documentation that identifies current DIMS data flow against proposed data flow diagram to be facilitated by OpenWells has not been submitted to Landmark.

H This documentation must be submitted and made a part of the project plan and a deliverable to minimize the level of effort identified by Landmark in the project plan for system configuration.

Not Mitigated

2. Support for current DIMS system is diminishing

H Manage relationship with Landmark as they will fix critical defects if they impact production or revenue; unable to identify data to clarify bugs/defects that have not been addressed by Landmark and are impacting drilling activities

Mitigated:Landmark has not identified any development or bug fix issues and has committed to working with the Product Manager in addressing Severity 1 level fixes that are deemed to be service or revenue impacting.

3. Growth in drilling reduces ability to support current client base and surveillance tasks with DIMS system

H Migration to OpenWells has more scalability and can accommodate increasing volumes; need to identify impacts that have resulted in application’s (DIMS) inability to support current growth trends

Not Mitigated

4. Inadequate business resources available to ensure business requirement criteria is met

H Identify business lead for verification and clarification of configuration and customization criteria that will be the basis of the business requirements.

Mitigated:Deanna Morgan has been designated by Ty Watson as the business lead.

5. IT will be perceived as the driver of this project and will have sole accountability for the success and/or failure of this project

H Business has agreed to take ownership in support of this project; business team will partner with IT to ensure the success of this initiative.

Mitigated:Met with Ty Watson and Eric Kolstad and both have agreed to take ownership in the success of this implementation if the direction to proceed is agreed to by IT upper management.

6. Business drivers unclear to justify project

H Meet with key stakeholders and understand/document the business drivers for implementation of OpenWells.


WIT Resource Group

Risk Impact (H,M,L)

Risk Mitigation StrategyMitigated

Not Mitigated

7. Implementation tasks will not have input from the business users to ensure successful configuration and customization of application

H Lead appointed by the business will be responsible for gathering requirements to support customization and configuration efforts.

Mitigated: See Exhibit “D” of this document.

8. Inadequate identification of workflow requirements to support EDM can result in Vendor directed configuration instead of workflow generated by data distribution requirements as identified by Williams which would add additional consulting cost to Williams

H Identify and document workflow requirements to support EDM data management prior to implementation effort. Business lead has prior implementation experience with OpenWells.

Not Mitigated

9. Non-identification of best tool or application to meet Williams requirements for drilling/completions application to ensure product is best choice.

H Investigate viable options in the industry that will meet Williams’ requirements; both business and IT, for a drilling/completions application.

Not Mitigated

10. Additional wells/data conversion efforts by Landmark if implementation is delayed

L Data conversion not based on quantity of information but integrity of information; the way the information is entered into DIMS today will not change if implementation is delayed per Landmark Product Manager

Mitigated:Per Landmark, no impact as it relates to the addition of Wells and data as to the implementation date.

11. Data Assessment and Evaluation will have to be redone if implementation is delayed

L Assessment will be of use up to one (1) year from now because assessment was not based on time data was assessed but the quality of the data that was evaluated according per Landmark Product Manager

Mitigated:Assessment good for one year from last assessment. Will expire November, 2007.

System Functionality The table below represents the basic system functionality and requirements of a drilling & completions tool identified by both field and office personnel who currently use the DIMS application.


WIT Resource Group

Functional Requirements Comparison

Requirement DIMS OpenWells

1. Shall be configurable and scaled to support any field operating environment to facilitate operations reporting and ad-hoc query needs

X X

2. Shall support multiple systems of measurement and multiple languages. X X

3. Shall enable users to obtain a complete operations history for well drilling and completions data.

X X

4. Users shall be able to configure what data is captured. X X

5. Users shall be able to configure how data entry forms are arranged. X X

6. Users shall be able to configure what data is automatically carried over from one report to the next.

X X

7. System shall offer configurable data validation for picklists. X X

8. System shall include comprehensive hard-copy output reports, and third-party-generated custom reports.

X X

9. System shall provide ad-hoc query generation through the Data Analyzer analysis tool.

X X

10. System shall provide a fully integrated and comprehensive database, communications and engineering data management system for drilling, completions and well servicing.

X X

11. Reports shall be configurable to identify dollars spent on any well. X X

12. Reporting capability shall include historical data of well activity including AFE and LOE work.

X X

13. Report output shall include capability to export to external applications such as Excel.

X X

14. System shall support data retention until well is plugged. X X

15. Reports shall be visible in HTML and PDF formats. X X

Gap AnalysisThe Gap analysis identifies a comparison between DIMS and OpenWells based on system and field requirements from current DIMS users from both the Piceance and CBM teams. This information represents both office and drilling field personnel.

Gap Analysis

Description DIMS OpenWells


WIT Resource Group

Gap Analysis

1. Reports can be created, scheduled and distributed automatically – totally customizable, scheduled

Not applicable X

2. Field Office Transfer features:

Includes updated picklist information in transfer Can integrate into Outlook and/or use FTP Send confirmation reports to sender

X – limited capability X

3. Tighter integration with directional drilling applications i.e. Compass due to shared database

Not applicable X

4. Available API and programming toolkit to allow customization and access to data that is supported by Landmark.

Not applicable X

5. Comprehensive Catalogue Data Selection Not applicable X

6. New Reporting Areas – Progressing Cavity Pump, Kick, Fishing, Non-Productive Time, Lessons Learned

Not applicable X

7. Import/Export Ability– Cement, Stim, Drillstrings, Fluids, Wellhead

Not applicable X

8. Automated Partner Reporting Not applicable X

9. More detailed fields supported for field engineers Not applicable X

Constraints and AssumptionsConstraints and Assumptions identify any deliberate or implied limitations or restrictions placed on the project along with any current or future environment the project must accommodate. These factors will influence many project decisions and strategies. The potential impact of each constraint or assumptions should be identified here.

Constraints

Decreased support for the current DIMS application – no new code development to address defects unless the defects are identified to be critical and service impacting to the business

Assumptions:

Business will provide DIMS current state process flow diagram and proposed OpenWells process flow diagram to identify process mapping from DIMS to OpenWells.

An onsite Landmark consultant will facilitate implementation, training and cutover tasks in conjunction with the Williams Business lead.

UAT - Test cases will be documented and communicated to Landmark for acceptance based on criteria identified


WIT Resource Group

by the Williams Business lead.

Hardware support will be available during the configuration, conversion and installation phase of this project.

Recovery and backup procedures are in place for migration and cutover activities.

Project ScopeProject Scope identifies the boundaries for the project. Specific scope components are the business areas or functions to be examined by the project (Domain of Study) and the work that will be performed (Domain of Effort). The Project Scope should identify what is in scope and what is not in scope.

Domain of StudyIN SCOPE OUT OF SCOPE

Cost/benefit analysis of OpenWells implementation prior to year end 2006

Functional requirements

Gap Analysis between OpenWells and DIMS

Identification of DIMS user issues (“pain points”) with current system

Identification of business drivers to upgrade to OpenWells prior to year-end 2006

Implementation tasks and activities to support upgrade

Any pain points identified with DIMS that is not remediated with OpenWells will be dealt with as a follow up project

Domain of Effort

IN SCOPE OUT OF SCOPE

Requirements gathering from user groups

Examination of Landmark documentation as it relates to their implementation plan proposal

Validation of hardware requirements and components

Identification of risks associated with implementation vs. investigating other viable solutions

None identified


WIT Resource Group

Project Completion CriteriaProject Objectives identify measurable criteria that must be satisfied before the project is considered complete.

Ensure user community is engaged in all project communications

Business lead/Product Manager provides DIMS current process flow state diagram and OpenWells future state process flow diagram to identify new process information flow mapping diagram for existing users

Providing status and communication to User Group for project progress and issues to be resolved as applicable

Ensure user community understands requirements and enhancements

Ensure all potential risks and mitigations have been identified

Identification of hardware options including current, in-house equipment

Validation and justification of costs and benefits

Recommendation of options based on findings

Project JustificationProject Justifications provide a recap of known cost and benefits from performing the project. These factors may be more fully defined in a Project Cost/Benefit Worksheet. The project financials must be reforecast during the life of the project and should be compared to actuals at the conclusion of the effort. Some of the listed items are tangible (priced) and others intangible (unpriced).

Benefits

The following benefits represent both non-monetized and monetized benefits. The monetized benefits represented below represent input and validation from the users/Project Sponsor and has not been certified by the Project Manager. For validation of the owner of the business drivers and cost savings benefit, please see Exhibit “D”.

Description Benefit Estimate (Annual) Benefit Estimate (5 years)

Non-monetized Benefits

Alignment with partner, Western Gas, to enable sharing of data between systems

Unpriced

Monetized Benefits

OpenWells supports more data fields and provides more details than DIMS. OpenWells can be enhanced by Landmark based on User Group requests or paid customer requests. A request has been made to add a survey report to rate completion activity by vendor. (New

$1,600,000.00

(Cost per frac $60,000 X 1%) x avg. number of fracs per well 6.5 x 420 wells per year).

$8,000,000.00


WIT Resource Group

Description Benefit Estimate (Annual) Benefit Estimate (5 years)

Project) The resulting information could save Williams 1% on the cost of frac jobs in Piceance or about $1,600,000 per year.

Reports can be created, scheduled and distributed automatically. OpenWells has a feature to automate this activity.

$117,000.00

(5 users saving 1.5 hours per day @ $60./hour)

5 (users) * 1.5 hours = 7.5 hours per day * $60/hour = $450.00/day * 5 days = $2,250.00/week * 52 weeks =

$585,000.00

Field Office Transfer features:

Includes updated picklist information in transfer

Can integrate into Outlook and/or use FTP

Send confirmation reports to sender

$234,000.00

(based on 8 hour days; savings of 10 minutes / day; $1300/day; $108/hour; $1.80/minute * 10

minutes) per field engineer; total field engineers = 50

$18.00/day * 5 days = $90/week * 52 weeks = $ $4,680.00 * 50 field

engineers

$1,170,000.00

Users shall be able to configure what data is captured.

$156,000.00

(This saves the field operator 5 to 10 minutes per day. These guys

make about $150/hour. Savings of $60/week x 50 workers x52 weeks

$780,000.00

Users shall be able to configure how data entry forms are arranged.

$46,800.00

(Office users would also benefit, the savings would increase by (60 users at $60/hour for 3 days per

weeks * 52 weeks) $46,800

$234,000.00

Total $2,153,800.00 $10,769,000.00

One-Time Project Costs

The costs reflected in the following table represent a breakdown of one-time project costs for the OpenWells implementation.

Expected Project Costs


WIT Resource Group

Description Williams Role Williams Hours

Williams Costs

Landmark Role Landmark Costs

Pre-conversion data assessment

Determine the integrity of data to be converted and migrated

N/C

Included in data evaluation

charge

Data Evaluation Evaluate data to be converted /migrated

$ 5,580.00

Data Migration Write data conversion scripts/migrate data

N/C

Included in data evaluation

charge

Test Case development

Write test cases and business scenarios

80 $4,400.00

$55/hourly rate)

Hardware procurement - Hardware installation/setup/ configuration

Procure blade servers from IBM for installation and setup

$80,000.00

Software Licenses 16 office @$2,100/each (concurrent); field licenses are free with the purchase of the 16 office licenses

$ 33,600.00

Implementation -Application Install (includes desktop)-Install on Citrix-Publish to Users-Database Install-Create Database-Setup Field to Office Data Transfer-FTP & E-Mail methods ---Document and recommend methods for each area based on needs and obstacles

-Setup Autoprint and Output Report Distribution -Document procedure

$134,900.00


WIT Resource Group

Description Williams Role Williams Hours

Williams Costs

Landmark Role Landmark Costs

for setting up autoprint or its replacement

UAT Testing Test application for business acceptance criteria

80 $4,400.00

($55/hourly rate)

IT Project Management

Manage project activities and deliverables

1,040.00 $ 89,467.00

4 hours/day @$75.00

*12 months

Training Based on 2 day admin training for 2 Williams persons in Houston; 18 days of onsite training for field and office personnel totaling 150 users @ $2,750/day - 8 students per class 100 users ; 12 ½ day classes = 6 days50 users ; 6 classes * 2 days = 12 days

$50,000.00

Travel & Expense Travel & Expense for Landmark Consultant for 18 weeks at $1,800.00/week

$ 32,400.00

IT Support Costs Cutover/migration support 400 $ 22,000.00

Total Project cost: 1,600 $200,267.00 - -- $256,400.00

Ongoing Costs vs. One-Time Costs

Description One-time Cost Annual Cost

Data Assessment/Evaluation – (completed)

Landmark consultant at $1,860.00/day

$ 5,580.00

Implementation – includes project plan/deliverables (cost does not include travel and expenses) (quote valid until 09/24/2006)

$134,900.00


WIT Resource Group

Description One-time Cost Annual Cost

Hardware – IBM Direct costs (see Exhibit “A” for Options A & B for hardware and installation)

$ 85,000.00

Hardware support - 24x7 – production servers

12 months @$5,000/month

Development/Test server support

12 months @ $2,500.00/month

$ 60,000.00

$ 30,000.00

Licenses – 16 office @$2,100/each (concurrent); field licenses are free with the purchase of the 17 office licenses

$ 33,600.00

Based on 2 day admin training for 2 Williams persons in Houston; 18 days of onsite training for field and office personnel totaling 150 users @ $2,750/day - 8 students per class

100 users ; 12 ½ day classes = 6 days 50 users ; 6 classes * 2 days = 12 days (See Exhibit “D” for Training Class Types)

$50,000.00

Ongoing Support costs = 18% * # of licenses (16) (includes 15% increase as of September 1, 2006)

$7,055.20

WIT Project Management costs – 4 hours/day @$75.00 *12 months

$ 89,467.00

Travel & Expense for Landmark Consultant for 18 weeks at $1,800.00/week

$ 32,400.00

IT Support Costs $ 22,000.00

Total $452,947.00 $ 97,055.20

Project ApproachProject Approach identifies the general strategy for completing the project and explains any methods or processes that will be used during the project.

User Group Formation – A user group comprised of DIMS users from CBM, Piceance and Production Services teams:

Provide design input and requirements as necessary for finalization of report customization

Provide Business acceptance criteria for all deliverables

Perform User Acceptance Testing


WIT Resource Group

Provide input for prioritization of future software releases

Project Management Methods: The following Project Management Methods will be employed:

Project Repository to store project documentation in a central location

Change Management Control

Issue Logging and Tracking

Status Reporting

Proposed Project Timing:

o The original project plan submitted by Landmark does not include User Acceptance Testing (UAT) that identified 221 days from start to finish which is 10 months and 3 weeks. The added time to allow for UAT activities including test case generation and acceptance has extended this time from the original projection of 221 days to one (1) full year.

Proposed Implementation Start Date End Date

Data Migration, Configuration, Installation, Implementation & Training

07/01/2006 05/01/2007

Project OrganizationThe Project Organization identifies the roles and responsibilities needed to create a meaningful and responsive structure that enables the project to be successful. This Project Organization must identify the people who will play each assigned role.

A Project Manager is also required for each project. This person is responsible for initiating, planning, executing and controlling the total project effort. Members of the Project Team report to the Project Manager for project assignments and are accountable to the Project Manager for the completion of their assigned work. The Project Manager for this project is Pamela Blair.

A Project Team is assembled for each effort to perform the actual work of the project. This team represents a collection of skills and opinions that are considered significant to the success of the project. Team members are commonly selected from many internal and external organizations. The core Project Team members for this project are:

Responsibilities for project team members are specified in each cell as

R - Responsible (produces deliverable)

A - Accountable (ensures quality of deliverable)

C - Consulted

I - Informed

Note there can be only one resource accountable (A) for each deliverable.

The major distinction between accountable and responsible:


WIT Resource Group

A = Accountable = The person who is ultimately held accountable for the deliverable/task/document if it is not completed.

R = Responsible = The person who has been given the task of producing (writing) the deliverable. This person although responsible for producing the deliverable may not be held accountable if the deliverable is not produced.

There is always only one resource with the ”A” (accountable). Therefore, only one person is held accountable if the task/deliverable is not completed. There may be a number of resources that are responsible for a deliverable. It is possible that a resource may be both responsible and accountable for a deliverable, for example the project manager is both accountable and responsible for the project charter.

Roles Project Manager

Product Manager

Project Process

Manager

Business Lead Project Sponsor

Hardware

SME

Names Pamela Blair

( A )

( R )

Dana Elkind

( C )

Bill Bonner

( C )

( I )

Deanna Morgan

( C )

Alan Delp

( C )

Ty Watson

(C)

John Lawyer

( C )

Key activities or deliverables

Project Charter

Historical project & product

information

Project direction

Verification of requirements and

business acceptance criteria

Input as required

Verification of existing hardware


WIT Resource Group

Project Charter AcceptanceWhen a formal confirmation of Project Charter review and validation is needed, a Project Charter Acceptance section should be included This section should include approval from the Project Sponsor(s). It may also include locations for approvals from any corporately designated funding agents and service provider management who are corporately charged with certifying the project.

The signatures affixed below indicate that the undersigned…

Have read the Project Charter and its Exhibits Have formally voiced any concerns to the Project Manager Certify that the Project Charter accurately represents their expectations and conditions required for the project Are unaware of any conditions that prevent this agreement from being followed Recommend that the Project Charter be presented to the E&P Steering Committee

_____________________________________ _______________ Chris Graves Date

_____________________________________ _______________ Pamela Blair Date Project Manager


The content and organization of this template is the copyright property of Tryon and Associates. If you wish to use this template, the following notice must be included in your document:

"This template is the copyright property of Tryon and Associates. You may obtain further information about Tryon and Associates at www.TryonAssoc.com or by calling (918) 455-3300."

http://www.TryonAssoc.com/

WIT Resource Group

Exhibit “A”

Hardware Configuration/Requirements

Option “A” – IBM Rough Order estimate to Dana Elkind from Wayne Hile:

1 dual processor server – Terminal services

1 dual processor server – Web service/dedicated web server to replace IDIMS

1 virtual server – Autoprint service to enable the creation of .pdf files for the web server

1 single processor – Test environment

1 single processor – Development environment

Total of 4 blades at a cost of $85,000.00 (no ARC charges)

Option “B” – Internal resources with purchase of 2 blades from IBM:

Development

Existing SQL 2000 Server VMWare host for DIM to EDM data conversion

Existing VMWare hosted virtual server (wmsdnvts6) for batch processing (autoprint, appender) and on-line services (data entry, reporting)

New VMWare host for required web interface development (IIS)

Test Production

2 - HS02 2-way blade servers, one for batch processes and the other on-line terminal services

Add OpenWells web access to existing IIS server currently running on VMWare host

Expand the existing EDM database on the SQL Server Cluster to include OpenWells support

Total cost from IBM - $25,000.00 plus ARC charges


WIT Resource Group

Exhibit “B”

OpenWells Implementation Tasks

The proposal to implement/upgrade OpenWells is broken up into 4 different phases and are as follows:

Data Migration/Conversion Configuration Installation Implementation

The following table represents all of the tasks and activities required to implement OpenWells;

Replacement/Upgrade TasksTask Description Time Estimate to Complete

Data Migration Assessment 5 days Run pre-migration data

evaluation queries Document observed issues Prepare recommendation on

actions necessary to prepare data

Prepare findings and recommendations report

Configuration 62.5 days Configuration Assessment Security Configuration Define TIGHT GROUPS [Site and Well level] Define baseline default Token rights "Define GROUPS [Token rights; BU, PU, Asset

groups]" Define USERS [Token rights; NT User ID's] Test Implemented Security Implement security model locally Current DIMS Configuration Replicated as

starting point Custom Labels and Field Descriptions

Field Status Colors Pick lists replicated Pick list filters updated to operate within EDM Data Validation Interview Williams Representative to determine

""Rules"" requirements Create/Implement Rules Test Existing Rules


WIT Resource Group

"Train Williams Representative to implement company-wide, maintain, and/or make future changes to rule-set"

Data Entry Forms Configured Work with designated Williams Representatives to

develop custom reporting screens Build entry forms - QA/QC data entry form

request Testing custom data entry forms with the assets Secure approval on forms Configure Data Analyzer Queries Packaged example System queries Solicit feedback from customers - gather queries

which have global usage and recreate as part of standard offering

Configure Profile Templates Develop Profile templates for common operations

Create Download Site for New Symbols Convert Output Reports Convert reports (DDR Output Report) Establish process for quality testing old reporting

output against new reporting output using representative data sets

Secure approval from testing team on results prior to packaging reports for distribution

Data Migration 17.5 days Pre-Data Migration Clean-Up (QA/QC) Perform Minimum Cleanup to migrate data Perform sample first pass Communicate with Asset Data Mapping Document describing differences between KM

data model and EDM standard data model Modify existing Landmark mapping scripts Global Data Migration Backup all existing Oracle databases and store

Execute migration Plan (in conjunction with application rollout)

Implementation 57 days Application Install Install on Citrix Publish to Users Test Database Install Create Database Test Setup Field to Office Data Transfer FTP & E-Mail methods - Reliability in low

bandwidth / poor quality communication scenarios


WIT Resource Group

Document and recommend methods for each area based on needs and obstacles

Setup Autoprint and Output Report Distribution Document procedure for setting up autoprint or its

replacementUser Acceptance Testing 10 daysRollout 45 days

Roll-out Installation Mechanisms to Rigs "NetMeeting driven CD Installs; On-Site Support

driven Installs, …" Establish Schedule and Timing Customized rollout based on customer needs "On site at the Rig training, group/office based

training, follow-up, 'day of support'" Roll out Begins Denver Colorado Update Houston Oracle Production EDM

Database Identify Individual for Data Approval Identify Live Wells Train Key Data Management Users Migrate Data Correct data and merge if necessary Data Approval Install and Train General User population Parachute Colorado Travel Live Data Migration and Data Approval Install and Train General User population Gillette Wyoming Travel Live Data Migration and Data Approval

Install and Train General User population 5 days


WIT Resource Group

Exhibit “C”

Training Breakdown by “Type”

1. Role: “Well Administrator” responsible for gathering the necessary information to initiate the well in the system. A few

of these will input a little bit additional data, but do not need the full input training as those in group #2.

2. Role: “Field Input” Rig foremen (drilling/completions/workovers) that enter the daily data as required and will be

defined to them in training.

3. Role: “Office Input” Occasional input/corrections to the data, but not the bulk of the data entry. This is more

along the lines of the additional data the Well Admins (group #1) input, but this group will not be initiating wells into the system.

4. Role: “’Office’ Users” Only accesses the data that is in the system. (Most likely the majority of the “office” users).

** Groups 1, 3, and 4 will also have Data Analyzer) to access data.

5. A fifth group may be considered for more advanced querying with a requirement that they be to one of the above training sessions and understand the basics of querying.

Groups 1-4 would all have a basic overview of the entire system (excluding the system administration functions) at the beginning of their training session. Generally, training for each specific group is ½ to 1 day.


WIT Resource Group

Exhibit “D”

Summarization of Business Drivers and Business Resource

RequirementsThe purpose of this communication is to document the business drivers in support of the OpenWells upgrade/implementation referenced by the Project Charter submitted May 23, 2006.

The following table represents business user/stakeholder input as it relates to business drivers to support implementation of this project prior to year-end 2006. The information from the users was submitted by Dana Elkind and Alan Delp.

Functional Requirement Business Driver Business User

Shall be configurable and scaled to support any field operating environment to facilitate operations reporting and ad-hoc query needs

OpenWells supports more data fields and can provide more details than DIMS. OpenWells can be enhanced by Landmark based on User Group requests or paid customer requests. A request has been made to add a survey report to rate completion activity by vendor. This report could cost Williams $100,000 est. to create; the resulting information could save Williams 1% on the cost of frac jobs in Piceance or about $1,600,000 per year. ((Cost per frac $60,000 X 1%) x avg. number of fracs per well 6.5 x 420 wells per year). If we do not move to OpenWells we can not add the survey.

Jeremy Conger/Alan Delp

Users shall be able to configure what data is captured.

DIMS can have fields grayed on, but they stay on the report from. OpenWells only displays what is required to fill in. This feature can save the field operator 5 to 10 minutes per day

Chris Caplis

Users shall be able to configure This feature allows reports and Chris Caplis


WIT Resource Group

how data entry forms are arranged.

screen to be put in order of need and importance. Placing the most used forms at the top of the tool bar reduces the amount of time required to find and use reports.

Users shall be able to configure what data is automatically carried over from one report to the next.

Time savings. 5 minutes a day can save $156,000 in a year for just field drillers. More if we include completions work.

Chris Caplis

OpenWells Upgrade Features

Reports can be created, scheduled and distributed automatically

OpenWells has a feature to automate this activity. The savings would include 5 users saving 1.5 hours per day = $78,000/year

Katy Greenough

JoAnne Parent-Silk

Field Office Transfer features:

Includes updated picklist information in transfer

Can integrate into Outlook and/or use FTP

Send confirmation reports to sender

OpenWells has a much better way to transfer data from the field to the office and the transfer includes more information, confirmations, and configuration features.

The savings for the field would be 10 minutes / day or $312,000/year.

Chris Caplis, Deanna Morgan

Tighter integration with directional drilling applications i.e. Compass

15 minutes saved by not entering duplicate data for each of 460 wells each year at $60/hour. $6,900 saved each year.

Eric Kolstad, Ken Sullivan

Business Resource Commitment

The success of this project is contingent upon the number of committed hours by the core business team for the performance of activities identified in the project plan. The following table lists a high-level summary of tasks and hours committed to by the Business Lead (Deanna Morgan) to support the success of the OpenWells upgrade should this project proceed forward with the implementation plan:

Business Resource/Role Task/Description Estimated Hours to Commit

Business Team Lead – Deanna Morgan

Liaison between IT Project team and the key business stakeholders; coordination efforts of business resources, ensures configuration business requirements are met; quality gate for business acceptance criteria; training

1,000

Business Acceptance Testers - 4 Test case generation and testing of deliverables 160


WIT Resource Group

Business Resource/Role Task/Description Estimated Hours to Commit

against acceptance criteria defined by IT Project Manager and Business Team Lead

IT Product Manager – Dana Elkind IT Infrastructure support; application installation/configuration; hardware configurations; work with IBM to get application installed and supports the business users and the IT team as requested; ensures users have adequate documentation for application use and training as requested

700

Technical Writer Documentation of end user application guide 500

Field Representatives Validation of drilling & completions data entry and report generation activities

200

CBM/Piceance Well Admins Report customization/allocation requirements and acceptance

300

Key Business Stakeholders Sign-off of deliverables as required; management of business driven escalation issues as applicable

300


Date post:	09-Aug-2015
Category:	Documents
Upload:	pamela-burgess-nelson
View:	29 times
Download:	3 times

EP Project Charter OpenWells2.3

Documents