SPE 81557

Business Process Re-Engineering in the Upstream Sector of E&P Companies. A study

of Staff Perceptions and Critical Success Factors
Elie Daher / Schlumberger Information Solutions
Copyright 2003, Society of Petroleum Engineers Inc.
This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE 13th Middle east Oil Show & Conference
to be held in Bahrain 5-8 April 2003.
This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE Program Committee following review of
information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to
correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily reflect any
position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Papers presented at
SPE meetings are subject to publication review by Editorial Committees of the Society of
Petroleum Engineers. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper
for commercial purposes without the written consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is
prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300
words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, SPE, P.O.
Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax 01-972-952-9435.

Abstract
This paper investigates the perceptions of staff with regard to
critical success factors (CSFs) for successful Business Process
Re-engineering (BPR) for the upstream sector of the
Exploration and Production (E&P) companies. The conclusion
and recommendations were drawn after a detailed review of
literature discussing BPR implementations in various
industries and using the results of a study performed on a
specific implementation of a BPR project for Information
Management in a mid-size E&P company.
This paper shows that the factors deemed most important
for successful BPR included items such as top management
support, commitment and understanding of BPR,
communication, empowerment and alleviation of downsizing
fears. Some unique characteristics for the E&P sector have
particular bearing on the application of BPR. They include the
existence of many intricate overlapping processes with
multiple stakeholders, changes in policy direction or in Oil
prices, the existence of a professional workforce and the
existence of defined internal organizational boundaries.
Suggestions on how to maximize the chances of success in the
BPR are discussed.
Introduction
With the recent mergers, most majors have considered
embarking on a massive re-engineering effort in order to
streamline their front office of exploration and development.
Similarly, the major resource holders have embarked on very
creative re-engineering projects in order to keep their position
in their market place and the small players that were left out
have been forced to re-engineer in order to attract financial
backing or partnership.
Re-engineering has a great potential of increasing
productivity for an E&P company through reduced cycle time
and cost, improved data and information quality and greater

employee satisfaction. However the process is very complex

in nature and needs to be checked against several success and
failure factors to ensure successful implementation as well as
to avoid implementation pitfalls.
This paper hopes to address the research problem
pertaining to the E&P Company BPR effort:
What are the critical success factors for a successful
implementation of a Business Process Re-engineering in the
upstream sector of an E&P Company?
To address this problem, this paper uses the consolidated
study that was published by ProSci in 1999, a review of both
theoretical and practical literature available on BPR and an
action research of one of the project implemented in the
upstream sector of an E&P company.
Importance of Critical Success Factors in BPR
Hammer and Champy (1993) estimate that as many as seventy
percent of companies embarking on a BPR effort do not
achieve the dramatic results they seek. Although a multitude
of companies were actively pursuing re-engineering since the
inception of BPR effort, evidence revealed that many of the
efforts were not meeting original expectations. In fact surveys
performed in 1993- 1994 suggest that sixty to eighty per cent
of re-engineering programs have been unsuccessful. Several
factors have been found to be critical for a successful BPR
effort and those factors were supported by mainly two
surveys: A survey done in 1996, funded by the society of
management accountants of Canada, on the assessment of
business process re-engineering practices among Canadian
organizations conducted by Dr Howard Armitech, school of
accountancy, University of Waterloo, the results show an
overwhelming 64 of the 68 companies that had completed a
project claimed some levels of success (94%) and ProSci
(1999). ProSci reported more than 75% of the teams surveyed
met or exceeded their objectives and only 25% of the projects
have been unsuccessful. Being consistent with conventional
wisdom, most of the respondents - 39 companies- have
reported successful projects, admitted most that most goals
expected were achieved and only 25 companies or 37% that
had completed a project felt that all goals expected were met.
Looking at the reasons why the differences in success rates
from 1993 to 1999 might be explained, one might conclude
that teams that indicated the highest degree of success with
their projects in the ProSci survey have ensured that the
critical success factors were taken into consideration and
applied throughout the design and implementation of the BPR.

One may conclude then that the BPR effort has undergone a
refinement process since 1993 following the capture of
knowledge that lead to believe that at the heart of the
refinement was the determination and the evaluation of critical
success factors throughout the implementation of the BPR.
Critical Success Factors from the ProSci Study
ProSci is the recognized leader in re-engineering and change
management research, and is the world's largest provider of reengineering toolkits and benchmarking information. ProSci
study (1999) gave a comprehensive look at a broad spectrum
of industries and businesses from both the private and public
sectors from around the globe and the result of their
experiences in BPR. Two hundred and forty eight
organizations from forty-four countries in six continents
participated at the study. The participants to the study
represented a diversity of industry groups, ranging from health
care to manufacturing. The service industry led all segments
representing 40% of the participants followed by
R&D/manufacturing with 26%, Government-Civilian for 10%,
Education for 6%, Government-Defense for 5%, Distribution
and Health care for the rest.
ProSci (1999) emphasized the following success factors as
major contributors to the overall success and I quote ProSci
(1999, p29):
Employ change management techniques including a strong
emphasis on communications and training with key
stakeholders and employees.
Get top-management support for the project. Agree on
scope and goals and engage managers throughout the
project with period performance reviews.
Select the right team and train members properly. Use
senior employee or manager as the team leader and bring
in external experts or consultants when needed.
Create excellent project plan that clearly documents goals,
scope, charter and success measures. Obtain agreement on
this plan from project sponsors.
Looking at the success factors that gave the results in Dr
Armitech study in 1996, the most significant factors that
contributes to BPR success are:
Top management support 78%.
Keeping open lines of communication that counts 44%,
A strong project management team 41%
An appropriate leadership 41%
Various literature and studies examining the success or
failure of BPR, have identified specific CSFs which underpin
the above results. A review of these literature and studies was
carried out and the identified CSFs were categorized below.
Critical Success factors from Litterature Reviews
The authors reviewed and listed below are among the best in
the consulting industry. They have documented one or many
of the critical success factors listed in this paragraph:
Leith, 1994; Feltes and Karuppan, 1995; Alavi and Yoo,
1995; Gorver et al., Johansson et al. 1993, Barrett, 1994;
Towers, 1994; Furey, 1993; Dawe, 1996; Hagel, 1993; Zairi
and Sinclair, 1995; Dixon et al., 1994; Harrisson and Pratt,
1993; Carr, 1994; Klein, 1994; Moad, 1993; Guha et al., 1993;
Katzenbach and Smith, 1993; Talwar, 1993; Hammer, 1990;
Bashein et al., 1994; Carr, 1993; Jackson, 1997; Guha et al.,

SPE 81557

1993; Grover et al., 1993; Bruss and Roos, 1993; Hagel, 1993;
Guha et al., 1993; Feltes and Karuppan, 1995; Hammer and
champy, 1993; Stow, 1993; hall et al., 1993; Zairi and
Karuppan, 1995; Gould, 1993; Davenport, 1993; Towers,
1994; Rastogi, 1994; Klein, 1994; Clemmer, 1994; Shabana,
1996; Boyle, 1995.
From the readings, critical success factors were extracted
and grouped under five different categories:
1. Factors related to change management systems
and cultures
2. Factors related to management competence and
commitment
3. Factors related to organizational structure.
4. Factors related to BPR project management.
5. Factors related to IT infrastructure
For the purpose of this paper, when stating a documented
CSF, reference to the authors was omitted but
acknowledgment is preserved through the list of references at
the end of the paper.
1. Factors Related to Change Management
Systems and Cultures (CM)
Reward the team: Reward systems should be revised for the
new environment. It must be widespread, fair and encourage
harmony among employees
Communicate effectively: At all levels and all audiences.
Inside and outside the organization to market the BPR
program and to ensure patience and understanding of the
changes needed. Open, honest and clear. Frequently and in
both directions between those in charge and those affected by
BPR. Focus on something of value to internal and external
stakeholders. Time and quality are both excellent targets for
improvement.
Empower: Do not ignore the human factor - Empowerment of
"process owners". Staff at all levels feel more responsible and
accountable. Staff is given the chance to participate in process
redesign. Staff is able to set their goals and monitor their
performance and solve the problems that affect their work.
Involvement: All people must be openly and actively
involved and should be consulted at all stages on the process
and its leaders. People include line managers, process owners,
IS staff, Human resources and workers.
Train and educate: Increase training budget, train on BPR
skills and techniques and IT skills, on process analysis and
implementation.
Create an effective organizational culture adaptable to
change: Must understand and conform to new values,
management processes and new communication styles.
Working co-operatively, without competing against each
other, teamwork and integration of labor, co-ordination and
empowerment of employees become the standard attitudes.
Stimulate the organization willingness to change: Make
people resilient to change to remain positive, focused, flexible
and pro-active. Requires one-on-one and one-to-many
interactions with groups within and without the organization.
2. Factors related to Management competence
and commitment. (MC)
Committed and strong leadership: Leadership has to be

SPE 81557

effective, strong, visible and creative in thinking and

understanding in order to provide a clear vision for the future.
Vision to be communicated clearly to all employees
concerned. Commitment and support for the change must be
constantly secured from senior managers. Sufficient authority
and knowledge from senior managers when dealing with
Change resistance.
Risk Management: Risk associated with acceptance of
changes, deploying emerging IT with little familiarity, large
investment in resources. Continuous assessment of risk is
needed. Anticipation and planning for risk handling should be
part of the plan.
Factors relating to organizational structure.
(OS)
Have an effective re-engineering team: Should be
adequately composed and experienced in variety of
techniques. Made out of people from inside and outside the
organization with an adequate size and interchangeable
accountability. The determinants are as follows:
Competency, credibility, creativity, empowerment and
motivation.
Appropriate job definitions and responsibilities: Formal
and clear descriptions of jobs and responsibilities accepted and
understood by the people concerned
3.

4. Factors related to BPR project management.

(PM)
Align the BPR strategy with corporate strategy: A BPR
strategy would alter tasks of people and flows of material and
information. This alteration would become a source of
competitiveness that should be in line with the corporate
strategy as it provides guidance on how capabilities are used to
gain competitive advantage.
Plan and use project management techniques effectively:
Piloting new process designs, learning from errors, managing
people related issues and measurement of project progress
continually throughout the BPR project.
Set specific outcomes in relation to performance: Define
results that are in direct relation to the BPR effort, quantify
them and measure them. Demonstrate alignment of those
results to customer business drivers and objectives.
Have adequate resources
In people, material and budget
Use proper methodology
Use methodology that is proven and customized if need be.
Ensure project breadth and depth. Strict adherence to
proprietary BPR methodologies is unlikely to generate
abundant creative opportunities. A rounded, comprehensive,
mature and considered approach to BPR planning and
implementation, emerges from studies as a model of choice.
External orientation and learning
Based on customer research, competitive analysis and
benchmarking. Processes to be defined broadly in terms of
customer value. Learn from other organizations experiences in
BPR as well as learn from one re-engineering process to
another in the same organization. Learning can accelerate
progress and avoid unnecessary and potentially damaging
errors

Use consultants effectively

Consultants bring specialized skills, experience and knowhow. It is time consuming and expensive to build internally.
Success of consultants is determined by the level of
experience in implementing successfully similar projects in
other organizations.
Build a proper BPR vision
Clear and compelling vision for future processes. The process
vision directs both long term and day-to-day actions.
Effective process redesign
The effort must be straightforward and practical. It should
cover the documentation of existing processes, use of
prototyping, identifying process gaps and evaluation of
effectiveness of current processes.
Integrate BPR with other improvement approaches
Continuous improvement techniques increase dramatic gains.
Examples such as TQM is particularly suggested to be
integrated with BPR.
5. Factors related to IT infrastructure (IT)
Synergistic alignment of IT infrastructure and BPR
strategy: IT can enhance an organization's position by
supporting business-thrust strategy. The strategy should
describe the role of IT in leveraging changes to the underlying
business processes and infrastructures. The degree of
alignment is indicated by including the identification of
information resources needs in the BPR strategy.
Adequate IT investment and sourcing decisions: Should be
guided by corporate strategies. The process should include
expectations for IT investment in the firm, data access and use,
hardware and software resources, communications capabilities
and services and standards approach.
Adequate measurement of IT infrastructure effectiveness
on BPR: The measurement process may start with a number
of policies and goals that are translated into measures using
techniques like monitoring, auditing and benchmarking. IT
deficiencies in capabilities are uncovered and addressed and
the effectiveness of their addition is measured.
Increasing the IT function competency: Architectural
understanding, programming language, and structure of code,
dependencies on special language or platform features and the
cumulative effects of continuous maintenance all affect the
ability to engineer a legacy system. An effective IT function
needs to be designed into a comprehensive and flexible
structure that focuses on quality, delivery, value creation,
empowerment through education and re-skilling of IT staff.
Effective use of software tools: The use of modern software
to assist BPR efforts. It contributes to process visualization,
interactive demonstrations, improves productivity and shows
information flows between phases.
Action Research methodology and Results
1. Research methodology
Having identified a number of CSFs in the literature, a
research methodology is constructed to investigate their
applicability, based on employees/staff perceptions, within the
upstream sector of E&P companies. The research
methodology is shown in appendix 1. The E&P Company is
referred to as Company and the BPR designer and

implementer is referred to as Consultant.

First the list of CSFs identified in the literature and listed
above CSFs are discussed and analyzed with the Company by
the Consultant. This leads to a modified list of
CSFs, which reflected specific criterias and factors for the
particular Company.
Second, the modified list is formulated into a survey
questionnaire that is used to gauge the importance of those
factors. This questionnaire is distributed in parallel to
Company and to Consultant staff on three levels: Executive
management, Re-engineering team and Staff or users.
Finally, the resulting data is analyzed and discussed.
Recommendations on gaps and alignment are given and
actions for remedy are then taken.
This paper covers one example of application of this
methodology to a medium sized E&P Company where an
external BPR Consultant has implemented a specific BPR
project in Information Management.
2. Staff Survey and results
The questionnaire on BPR was circulated to 60 members of
the Company staff and 60 members of the Consultant staff.
Three bands of staff were identified by position and targeted.
The bands identified were:
From the Consultant - response rate 64%
Level 1: Executive Managers, VP, Business
managers, Engineering Managers
Level 2: Operations Managers, Project Managers,
Information Management Business Development
Managers
Level 3: Information Management Re-engineering
Team
From the Company - response rate 41%
Level 1: General Managers, VP
Level 2: Operations Managers, Team Leaders,
Section Heads, GeoScientists, Production and
Reservoir Engineers
Level 3: Information Management Re-engineering
Team
The questionnaire asked staff to rate the importance of
CSFs identified in the literature review and refined following
the research methodology application. In order to analyze the
responses in more details, scores were attributed to the
multiple-choice answers as follows (scores are shown
in brackets):
Very important (4)
More Important (3)
Important (2)
Less important (1)
Not important (0)
Statistical analysis based on mean scores, mean squares,
deviation and variance was conducted. The analysis allowed
the CSFs to be ranked in order of importance. This was
performed for each band (3 levels) and for each category of
CSFs (5). The categorization of the CSFs is also included in
each table: CM for change management, MC for Management
Commitment, PM for Project Management, IT for Information
Technology Infrastructure, OS for Organizational structure.

SPE 81557

The overall results of Company and Consultant are presented

in the appendices 2 and 3.
Discussion on critical issues arising from the survey
CSFs in agreement
Overall, Company and Consultant considered Top
management leadership and commitment and the integration
of the BPR effort with other improvement initiatives to be the
most important of the factors listed for the success of BPR for
this project. The following three graphs show the profile of the
answers from the Company perspective, Consultant
perspective and from the general BPR project reviews by
ProSci 1999.
Chart 1: Importance of Top management support for project success
Company perspective
Importance of top-management support for
project success - Company perspective
Very Important
Important
Not Important
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of respondents

Chart 2: Importance of Top management support for project success

Consultant perspective.
Importance of top-management
support for project success Consultant perspective
Very Important
Important
Not Important
0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Percent of Respondents

Chart 3: Importance of Top management support for project success

ProSci Survey 1999.

Importance of top-management support

for project success ProSci Survey
Very Critical
Somewhat
Did not matter
0

20

40

60

Percent of respondents

80

SPE 81557

Also ranked somewhere in the middle of the scale of

importance come Effective and well balanced re-engineering
team that is given proper job description and objectives and
using the proper methodology that suits the needs of the
Company are among the agreed CSFs between both parties.
CSFs in divergence
However the views of Company and Consultant somehow
diverge in the top ten success factors as Company views a
strong link to proper IT infrastructure, adequate investment
and competence in the IT domain more important factors then
a good communication and feedback program as seen by the
Consultant. The Consultant view is somehow more coherent
with other industries as listed in the ProSci report (ProSci,
1999, P26). The respondents to the ProSci survey stated that
the top three contributors to successful implementations were:
Support from management sponsors and top managers
within the user and IT communities
A good communication and change management program
Early positive results
If we examine closer the possible reasons behind this
divergence by examining individual level responses (not
presented here in this paper but compiled and analysed as part
of the study), It was more the Company Senior Managers who
viewed the various IT components as major contributors to the
success of BPR. In fact, the Company considered that the
Information Management re-engineering project is only a
small part of a major IT re-engineering project and it should
be well in line with the IT infrastructure, investment and
competence. This IT component influence is less striking in
the response of the Company users and not shown at all in the
Company re-engineering team response. This constitutes a
major gap in the alignment of the Company re-engineering
team and users with the senior managers' vision and directions
in re-engineering the IT function as a whole. Top Down
communications is essential in this case to ensure the buy-in
and the understanding of the organization of this vision and
direction. This strengthen the opinion of the consultant in
having an effective communication plan as to ensure company
vision, direction and CSFs are communicated down through
the organization and to Consultant re-engineering team.
As the Consultant re-engineering team focuses on the
Information Management re-engineering and with the absence
of the strong message from Company senior management,
Consultant might have missed the IT importance and
considered it as a separate project that did not concern him.
By analyzing the responses from the Consultant senior
managers and Consultant operations management, IT
infrastructure, investment, competence and alignment
importance level scores low and is consistent across the
Consultant organization.
While Company considers the IT factor as a major CSF, the
consultant puts it low on the importance list creating a gap in
the alignment between Company and Consultant hence
requiring a major change and shift in the strategy of the
Consultant, as he needs to encompass IT CSFs in the design
and implementation of the Information Management re-

engineering project or as an apparent extension to the reengineering efforts that is visible to the Company.
Furthermore, A competency based training program was
high on the importance list of the overall response of
Company compared to regular training program that is low on
both surveys. While the training budget was established earlier
due to contractual commitments, Consultant has changed the
standard classroom training and the original training scope of
work with a newly designed and customized competency
based training program named E&P Technology Mastery. The
major reasons behind the change is the ability of the
Consultant to effectively train, coach and mentor the Company
users and BPR team and monitor their increasing capabilities
while easing up the burden of change to the new process.
Competency training methods are growing rapidly and are
becoming increasingly strategic in E&P Companies. This
rapid increase in education investments is occurring because
learning is prerequisite for change and change is a
fundamental attribute of the knowledge era. The capacity to
learn and respond to advances in technology has become a
major factor that distinguishes organizations that prosper from
those that do not.
CSFs with mixed responses
1. Change Management Factors analysis: Examining further
the overall responses, While Consultant values Change
management and project management as the next batch of
CSFs, Company views them as slowly making it to the list of
CSFs but with more priority put on Project management
leaving Change management among the last factors.
One important fact is that Company does not see the real need
for "creating an effective organizational culture adaptable for
Change" as they rank this CSF among the least important
factors and it is consistent over the three Company levels.
The Consultant Information Management team also agrees
with the importance of this factor as opposed to Consultant
Senior Managers response that believes firmly in the strong
importance of this factor. This indicates that the Company
from senior managers to users is ready to change and adopt the
new process. However from feedback taken from the survey
and from the re-engineering team, some members of the users
community have expressed their skepticism over the success
of the project as they feel that the approach was a top-down
BPR, an important point that was not picked up by the survey
and therefore not communicated to the rest of the stakeholders.
In a top-down BPR, employees tend to be insufficiently
involved in the early approach and goal setting stage. The
Change management program is then key to address the issue
and overcome the resistance to change that some of the staff
might put ahead.
According to the various industries survey by ProSci, 1999,
Most change management steps used during BPR
implementations are good plan for communications, proper
training program, general change management techniques to
manage change and the implementation of a motivation and
recognition plan.

SPE 81557

ProSci survey ranking their consultants as excellent or very

good.

Change management steps used

Consultants' impact on project success

Developed a communication plan

Developed a training plan

Developed a transition plan to move ahead

Very critical
40%

Used change management techniques to

manage change

Didn't matter
3%

Implemented a report and recognition plan

20

40

60

80

Chart 4- Change management activities - Adapted from ProSci 1999

This matches well most of the steps identified in the CSF

survey conducted. For Consultant, a communication plan
includes by order of priority of importance:
Communicating the reasons and potential benefits of the
project
Regular feedback from users to the BPR team
Communication of the progress by the BPR team to
all staff
Empowerment of key people
A more articulated plan would be needed to address potential
skepisicm and resistance to change by some users.
2. Performance measurements/outcomes for BPR project
Ranked 17 on the Company overall survey and 5 on the
Consultant overall survey, Performance measurements and
outcomes are needed to establish the quantification of the
benefits achieved in the BPR effort. The Consultant sees it as
one of the top five most important CSFs however due to the
complex multifunctional nature of the Company organization,
the multitasking of users as well as a high degree of
confidentiality in the results, the Consultant found it difficult
to select quantifiable performance measures and outcomes by
which improvements could be measured.
3. Use of external consultants
The use of external consultants was among the least important
CSFs for Company. As the Company was actually using a
Consultant to implement the BPR effort, it is evident that the
understanding of the Consultant use in the questionnaire was
not clear. Following an investigation of this factor, it was
revealed that Company needs to differentiate between
Technical and Business consultancy and the Company
understanding was that the Consultant performing the BPR
project was more of a technical consultant. The Company low
score on the importance of this factor was in reference to the
use of a Business consultant.
Looking at other industries through the ProSci report ( ProSci,
1999) and referring to consultants as general business
consultants, their impact on project success is documented in
the following chart. Overall the effectiveness of consultants
was rated highly, with more than 70% of respondents in the

Not so
important
2%

Critical
36%

So-so
19%

Chart 5- Consultants impact on project success - Adapted from ProSci 1999

According to ProSci study, the top three roles of consultants

were
Advisor to the team
Team leader
Facilitator
While managing directors (or chief executives) are the primary
initiators of BPR projects, it appears these individuals tend to
delegate responsibility for the leadership of BPR projects to
other managers and subordinates.
Several organizations include consultants (both internal and
external) and technical specialists and directors in BPR teams
but BPR must be "owned" throughout the organization, not
driven by a group of external consultants.
There are several reasons why introducing a consulting
firm ought to increase an organization's chances to
successfully implement a BPR project. First, consulting firms
can bring their wealth of experience implementing similar
projects in other organizations. Consultants can direct the reengineering effort to areas where it can have the most
beneficial results. At the same time, by being outsiders to the
organization, consulting firms can take a fresh look at existing
processes and uncover unnecessary steps and conditions that
become an integral part of existing processes without serving a
specific purpose. Finally, as consultants, allegiances are to the
project at hand, they can bring an objective vision to the
project and thus act as facilitators of the change process by
mediating the inevitable conflicts that arise with the changes
introduced by BPR.
On the other hand, consultants can also be seen as having a
potential negative impact on the implementation of a BPR
project. First, by being outsiders to the organization, they have
a limited knowledge of the existing processes. An extensive
and lengthy study is the only way they can achieve some
understanding of the peculiarities of the process in a particular
organization. Delays in acquiring this basic information can
only have a negative effect over the completion times of the
project at hand. Even after such study, their knowledge of the
process will remain somewhat limited as many of the political
and organizational forces that have shaped existing processes
might still remain undiscovered. Without this critical

SPE 81557

information, consultants might recommend actions that,

although successful in other organizations, cannot survive or
lead to the results sought in a particular organization.
One can make extensive arguments for or against the use of
consulting services. The fact remains that some organizations
take that route while others prefer to undertake projects
internally. At the same time, all organizations do not use
consultants services in the same manner. While some
organizations use consultants to design and implement BPR
projects, other organizations limit their involvement to either
the design or the implementation stages of the project, the
Company surveyed could be used here as an example.
Conculsion and Recommendations
This study has identified a number of unique characteristics of
the upstream sector of E&P organizations, which have bearing
on the application of BPR. It was found that the application of
BPR in a professionalized organization, such as the one
examined, presents special issues for the introduction of a
management technique, which proposes to bring about
radical change.
Several steps recommended below have to be completed
before and during the initial phase of the BPR project to
maximize the chances of success.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Conduct at the launch of the BPR project the proposed

survey to identify the CSFs for both parties.
Analyze the results of the survey, identify the CSFs in
agreement and apply them
Identify the CSFs in divergence and take action to realign
and fill the gaps using proper change management, project
management or strategic change.
Ensure proper application of the aligned CSFs
Identify unique CSFs and analyze their uniqueness and
how it may affect the success of the project
Survey again after an appropriate lapse of time to check
the effect of the corrective actions for alignment.

Many of the key CSFs identified for BPR in the various

industries and sectors are equally relevant to the success of
BPR in the upstream sector of E&P companies according to
the study. Furthermore, it can be concluded that proper
attention must be paid to some critical success factors that are
in divergence between Consultant and Company. An early
action plan to align both organizations is needed as to
maximize the chances of success of the BPR effort.
It must be then decided whether the Company is ready for the
change brought about by the BPR effort as it was mentioned in
the survey. Further investigation is needed to ensure that all
staff is on board through the use of a solid change
management program to overcome the possible resistance
some of the staff might put forward. Preparation for change
involves a major human resource management effort. Sharing
and exchanging information willingly is an important part
of this.
Companies must also decide on the way Consultants will be
used in the Re-engineering program and to what level and
extent. Once decided and communicated to the Consultant, the
choice of training program to support the BPR would highly
enhance the success ratio of the BPR.

References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.

13.

14.
15.
16.

17.
18.
19.
20.

Alavi, M. and Yoo, Y. (1995), "Productivity gains of

BPR: achieving success where others have failed",
Informations Systems Management, Vol 4, pp. 43-7
Alter, A. (1994), Re-engineering tops list again,
Computerworld, Vol. 28 No. 5, January 31.
Anderson, B, (1998) Business Process Improvement
Toolbox. Hardcover / ASQ Quality Press
Andrews, D. and Stalik, S. (1994), Business reengineering: the survival guide, Yourdon Press,
Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
Arendt, C., Landis, R. and Meister, T. (1995), "The
human side of change - part 4", IIE Solutions, May,
pp. 22-7
Bazhaw, W.O. (1990) My Fifty-One Years in Oil
Exploration . / Hardcover / Post Point Press
Baksi, W. (1998) The IT in your future, SPE 50958, Oil
and Gas Executive Vol1, No 1, 24-29
Bashein, B., Markus, M. and Riley, P. (1994),
Precondition for BPR success and how to prevent
failures, Riley, P.
Berrington, C. and Oblich, R. (1995), "Translating reengineering into bottom-line results", Industrial
Engineering, January, pp. 24-7
Bjorn-Andersen, N. and Turner J. (1994), "Creating the
twenty first century organization: the metamorphosis of
action", Elsevier Science BV, North-Holland.
Brock, J., Davis, D., Finedore, J., (1997) Business Process
Re-engineering Assessment Guide. / Paperback / DIANE
Publishing Company
Carr, D., Hard, K., Trahant, W., (1995). Managing the
Change Process: A Field Book for Change Agents,
Consultants, Team Leaders, and Re-engineering
Managers. / Hardcover / McGraw-Hill Companies.
Carr, D., Johansson, H., (1995) . Best Practices in Reengineering: What Works and What Doesn't in the Reengineering Process. / Hardcover / McGraw-Hill
Companies.
Caron, J., Jarvenpaa, S. and Stoddard, D. (1994),
Business re-engineering at CIGNA corporation:
experiences and lessons from the first five years
Chang, R., (1999). Process Re-engineering in Action : A
Practical Guide to Achieving Breakthrough Results. /
Paperback / Wiley, John & Sons, Incorporated
Chilingarian, G., Gorfunkel, M., Knoring, L., (1999)
Strategies for Oil and Gas Exploration: Accurately
Evaluate Initial Potential and Forecast Reserves. /
Hardcover/ Gulf Publishing Company .
Clemmer, J. (1994), "Process re-engineering and process
improvement - not an either/or choice", CMA magazine,
June , pp. 36-9
Cooper, R. and Markus, M. (1995), "Human Reengineering", Sloan Management Review, Summer,
pp. 39-50
Coulson-Thomas, C. (Ed.) (1994), Business Process Reengineering: Myth and Reality, Kogan Page, London
CSC Index (1994), State of Re-engineering Report, North
America and Europe, CSC Index, Inc., London.

21. Davenport, T. (1993), Process Innovation: Reengineering Work Through Information Technology,
Harvard Business School Press, Boston, MA.
22. Davenport, T. and Short, J. (1990), The new industrial
engineering: information technology and business process
redesign, Sloan Management Review, Vol 31, No.4
23. Davenport, T. and Nohria, N. (1994), "Case management
and the integration of labor", Sloan Management Review,
Winter, pp. 11-23
24. Davidson, W. (1993)), Beyond re-engineering: the three
phases of business transformation, IBM systems Journal,
Vol. 32, No.1
25. Dawe, R. (1996), "Systems are people too", transportation
and Distribution, Vol 37 No.1, pp 86-90
26. Dixon, J., Arnold, P., Heineke, J., Kim, J. and Mulligan,
P. (1994), Business process re-engineering: improving in
new strategic directions. California Management
Review, Summer.
27. Furey, T. (1993), A six-step guide to process reengineering Planning Review, March/April, 1993
28. Feltes, P. and Karuppan, C. (1995), "Re-engineering
getting down to the business of doing business, Industrial
Management, Vol 37 No 4.
29. First Break (1999, October 17) Feature article: Oil
industry faces strategic change in operations to survive
new climate of uncertainty, p.337-339 , 1999-EAGE.
30. Goll, E.O. and Cordovano, M.F. (1993), "Construction
time again
31. Gould, L. (1993), Measuring business re-engineering is
part of its success, Managing Automation, May.
32. Grover, V., Kettinger, W. (1995). Business Process
Change: Re-engineering Concepts, Methods and
Technologies. / Hardcover / Idea Group Publishing
33. Grover, V., Jeong, S., Kettinger, W. and Teng, J. (1995),
The implementation of business process re-engineering,
Journal of Managament Information Systems, Vol 12.
34. Grover, V., Teng, J. and Fiedler, K. (1993), Information
technology enabled business process redesign: an
integrated
planning
framework,
Omega:
The
international Journal of Management Science, Vol 21
No 4.
35. Grugle, L. (1994), How effective communication can
ensure your strategy and local objectives are met, in
How to succeed at business process re-engineering,
University of Bradford Management Centre, Bradford.
36. Gulden, G. and Reck, R. (1992), Combining quality and
re-engineering efforts for process excellence,
Information Strategy: The Executive's Journal, Vol 10,
No1.
37. Hall, J., Rosenthal, J. and Wade, J. (1993), How to make
re-engineering really work, Harvard Business Review,
November-December
38. Hammer, M. (1990), Re-engineering work: dont
automate, obliterate, Harvard Business Review, Vol 68
No 4
39. Hammer, M. and Champy, J. (1993), Re-engineering the
corporation: a manifesto for business revolution, Harper
Business, New York, NY.
40. Hammer, M. and Stanton, S. (1995), The re-engineering
revolution, HarperCollins, New York, NY.

SPE 81557

41. Hammer M., (1997) Beyond Re-engineering: How the

Process-Centered Organization Is Changing Our Work
and Our Lives. / Paperback / Harper Business.
42. Harrison, D. and Pratt, M. (1993), A methodology for reengineering businesses, Planning Review.
43. Harvey, D. (1995), Re-engineering: the critical success
factors Management Today/Business Intelligence,
London
44. Hinterhuber, H. (1995), "Business process management:
the European approach", Business Change and Reengineering, Vol 2, No 4, pp 63-73
45. Hoffman, Z. (1997), Business process re-engineering: a
new strategic paradigm shift in change management, Bay
Zoltan Foundation for Applied Research Institute for
Logistics and Production Engineering.
46. Holland, D. and Kumar, S. (1995), Getting past the
obstacles to successful re-engineering,
Business
Horizons, May/June
47. Hunt, D., (1995). Process Mapping: How to Re-engineer
Your Business Processes. / Hardcover / John Wiley &
Sons, Incorporated
48. Jackson, N. (1997), "Business process re-engineering
'96", Management Services, February, pp. 34-6
49. Janson, R. (1992), "How re-engineering transforms
organisations to satisfy customers", National Productivity
Review, Winter, pp. 45-53
50. Johansson, H., McHugh, P., Pendlebury J., Wheeler, W.,
(1993) Business Process Re-engineering: Breakpoint
Strategies for Market Dominance. Paperback / Wiley,
John & Sons, Incorporated
51. Katzenbach, J. and Smith, D. (1993), The rules for
managing cross-functional re-engineering teams
Planning review, Vol 21, No 2.
52. Kettinger, W., Teng, J. and Guha, S. (1997), Business
process change: a study of methodologies, techniques, and
tools MIS Quarterly, March
53. Klein, M. (1994), Re-engineering methodologies and
tools: a prescription for enhancing success, Information
Systems Management, Spring.
54. Kotter, J.P. (1995), "Leading change: Why information
efforts fail?", Harvard Business Review, Vol 73, No 2, pp.
59-67
55. Leith, S.A. (1994), "Critical success factors for reengineering business processes", National Productivity
Review, Vol. 13 No 4, pp. 559-68
56. Martinez, E. (1995), Successful re-engineering demands
IS/business partnerships, Sloan Management Review,
Vol 36.
57. Maull, R.S., Weaver, A.M., Childe, S.J., Smart, P.A. and
Bennett, J. (1995), "Current issues in business process reengineering", International Journal of Operations and
Production Management, Vol. 15 No 11, pp. 37-52
58. McDonald, H. (1993), Business strategy development,
alignment, and redesign, in Scott-Morton, M. (Ed.), The
Corporation of the 1990s: Oxford University Press
59. Moad, J. (1993), Does re-engineering really work,
Datamation, 1 August
60. Morris, D. and Brandon, J. (1993), Re-engineering Your
Business, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY.
61. Mumford, E. (1995), "Creative chaos or constructive

SPE 81557

62.
63.
64.

65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.

change: business process re-engineering versus sociotechnical design" in Burke, G. and Peppard, J. (Eds),
Examining business Process Re-engineering: Current
Perspectives and Research Directions, Kogan Page, pp.
192-216
Ovenden, T. (1994), Business process re-engineering:
definitely worth considering, The TQM magazine Vol 6
No 3.
Ostroff, F. and Smith, D.S. (1992), "the horizontal
organization", The Mckinsey Quarterly, No 1, pp. 148-67
Pitman, B., (1996) Business Process Re-engineering Plain
and Simple: Planning to Successfully Achieve Dramatic
improvements. / Paperback / Human Resource
Development Press
Pernici, B., Sanchez, G., Grefen, P., (1999). Database
Support for Workflow Management : The Wide Project /
Hardcover / Kluwer Academic Publishers
ProSci Benchmarking Report, (1999), Best Practices in
Business Process Re-engineering and Process Design
QualTeam (Editor) (1994), Re-engineering Business
Processes and People Systems. Incorporated / Paperback /
QualTeam, Incorporated.
Randall, A. (1993)), Business process redesign: how to
do it Unpublished.
Rigby, D. (1993), The secret history of process reengineering. Planning Review, March/April.
Robson, M., Ullah, P., (1996). A Practical Guide to
Business Process Re-engineering. Hardcover / Ashgate
Publishing Company
Rothwell (1995), "Human resource management:
restructuring and re-engineering organizations", Manager
Update, Vol.6 No 4, pp.23-31
Shabana, A. (1996), The effect of outside consultants
involvement over the success of BPR projects, College
of Business Administration, Texas A&M university.

73. Stanton, T., Hammer, M. and Power, B. (1993) Reengineering: getting everyone on board, IT Magazine,
Vol 25 No 4
74. Stow, R. (1993), Re-engineering by objectives,
Planning Review, May/June
75. Talwar, R. (1993), "Business re-engineering - a strategydriven approach', Long Range Planning, Vol. 26 No 6, pp.
22-40
76. Teng, J. and Grover, V. (1992), Factors influencing
database planning: an empirical study, International
Journal of Mangement Science, Vol 20.
77. Thomas, M. (1994), What you need to know about:
business process re-engineering, Personnel Management,
January.
78. Towers, S. (1996), Re-engineering: middle managers are
the key asset, Management Services, December.
79. Worsley, C (1994), Preparing staff for BPR, in How To
Succeed At Business Process Re-Engineering , University
of Bradford Management Centre, bradford.
80. Zairi, M. and Sinclair, D. (1995), Business process reengineering and process management: a survey of current
practice and future trends in integrated management.
Management Decision, Vol 33, No 3.
81. Hydrocarbon Exploration and Production. Jahn, F., Cook,
M., Graham, M. (1998) / Hardcover / Elsevier Science
82. Lerche, I (1997) Geological Risk and Uncertainty in Oil
Exploration. / Hardcover / Academic Press, Incorporated
83. Toelle B., Lingley J. (1999). A method for conducting a
Complete Process workflow analysis. Unpublished
manuscript, E&P workflow consulting, GeoQuestSchlumberger Houston , Texas.
84. Willmott, H. (1994), Business process re-engineering and
human resource management." Personnel review, Vol 23,
No 3, pp. 34-46
85. Wellins R.S. and Murphy, J.S. (1995), "Re-engineering:
Plug into the human factor", Training and Development.

10

SPE 81557

Appendix 1 - Action Research Methodology Used

CSFs from the litterature

Questionnaire to gauge the
importance of the CSF in the
E&P upstream companies

External Survey carried out

(incl. Pilot) on three different
levels in E&P upstream
companies:
Senior mgt, IT Dept,
Geoscientists community

Internal Survey carried out

(incl. Pilot) on three different
levels in Re-Engineering
Company such as
Schlumberger GeoQuest:
Senior mgt, Project Mgt, Reengineering Personnel

Data Analysis

Data Analysis

Discussion on Results of
the survey on the three
groups (external)

Discussion on Results of
the survey on the three
groups (internal)

Discussion on Results of both

CSF (internal and external
perceptions and Conclusion
regarding gaps and alignment

SPE 81557

11

Appendix 2 - Consultant consolidated survey results

Consultant Overall response

Rank Item Critical Success Factor
11 Top management leadership and commitment
1
14 Integration of BPR with other improvement approaches
2
3
12 top management support and sponsorship
4
19 Use of project management techniques effectively
Effective communications of reasons and benefits of BPR to all
2 staff
5
Set specific outcomes in relation to performance/benchmarking,
20 customer needs
6
4 Regular feedback from Staff to the project team
7
27 Highlighting the values and benefits of the project
8
Regular communications of the progress of the BPR project to all
3 staff
9
10
21 Adequate resources to complete the BPR
11
5 Empowerment of key Staff from users community
18 Alignment of the BPR strategy with corporate strategy
12
25 Build a proper BPR vision
13
9 Stimulating the organization willingness to change
14
15
10 Creating an effective organizational culture adaptable to change
13 Risk assessment and Management
16
17
15 Effective and well balanced re-engineering team
7 ATraining and education program to support the implementation
18
19
6 Involvement of of staff of all staff in BPR
28 Synergistic alignment of IT infrastructure and BPR strategy
20
16 Appropriate job definitions and responsibilities
21
22
33 Increasing the IT function competency
8 Implement a Competency based training program
23
22 appropriate methodology selected to satisfy the current needs
24
26 Effective process redesign
25
26
29 Proper reassessment of the company IT infrastructure
27
31 Adequate measurement of IT infrastructure effectiveness on BPR
28
1 Revising reward and motivation systems
17 Various departments standing by their earlier commitments
29
30
30 Adequate IT investment and sourcing decisions
Moving from legacy systems to new systems using the latest
31
32 technology
23 External orientation and learning
32
33
24 Use of consultants or external re-engineering team

Category
MC
OS
MC
PM

Score
3.76
3.43
3.38
3.33

CM

3.29

PM
CM
PM

3.29
3.24
3.24

CM
PM
CM
PM
PM
CM
CM
MC
OS
CM
CM
IT
OS
IT
CM
PM
PM
IT
IT
CM
OS
IT

3.21
3.21
3.19
3.17
3.10
2.95
2.90
2.81
2.81
2.76
2.69
2.69
2.67
2.67
2.64
2.57
2.55
2.50
2.50
2.43
2.40
2.31

IT
PM
PM

2.19
2.05
1.86

12

SPE 81557

Appendix 3- Company consolidated survey results

Company Overall response

Rank
1
2
3

Item
11
14
33

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

32
12
18
19
28
4
29
30
8
25

14
15
16
17

2
5
21
15

18
19
20
21
22
23

20
16
27
31
9
22

24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33

3
17
7
24
26
6
10
13
1
23

Critical Success Factor

Top management leadership and commitment
Integration of BPR with other improvement approaches
Increasing the IT function competency
Moving from legacy systems to new systems using the latest
technology
top management support and sponsorship
Alignment of the BPR strategy with corporate strategy
Use of project management techniques effectively
Synergistic alignment of IT infrastructure and BPR strategy
Regular feedback from Staff to the project team
Proper reassessment of the company IT infrastructure
Adequate IT investment and sourcing decisions
Implement a Competency based training program
Build a proper BPR vision
Effective communications of reasons and benefits of BPR to all
staff
Empowerment of key Staff from users community
Adequate resources to complete the BPR
Effective and well balanced re-engineering team
Set specific outcomes in relation to performance/benchmarking,
customer needs
Appropriate job definitions and responsibilities
Highlighting the values and benefits of the project
Adequate measurement of IT infrastructure effectiveness on BPR
Stimulating the organization willingness to change
appropriate methodology selected to satisfy the current needs
Regular communications of the progress of the BPR project to all
staff
Various departments standing by their earlier commitments
ATraining and education program to support the implementation
Use of consultants or external re-engineering team
Effective process redesign
Involvement of of staff of all staff in BPR
Creating an effective organizational culture adaptable to change
Risk assessment and Management
Revising reward and motivation systems
External orientation and learning

Category
MC
OS
IT

Score
3.44
3.40
3.40

IT
MC
PM
PM
IT
CM
IT
IT
CM
PM

3.32
3.28
3.24
3.24
3.20
3.16
3.12
3.12
3.08
3.08

CM
CM
PM
OS

3.04
3.04
3.04
3.00

PM
OS
PM
IT
CM
PM

3.00
2.96
2.92
2.92
2.88
2.88

CM
OS
CM
PM
PM
CM
CM
MC
CM
PM

2.84
2.84
2.80
2.76
2.72
2.60
2.48
2.44
2.36
2.04