This is a mock up appraisal of an imaginary oilfield services organization, performed against the CMMI SVC practices. It is based on my own experience as a certified high maturity lead appraiser of the CMMI DEV and SVC constellations and a past experience in one of the world's leaders in consulting with a specialty in oilfield services. The article is meant to illuminate how the practices are pertinent in that particular industry. It was developed a few years ago as part of the requisites to become certified for SVC by (then) the SEI.

1. © LIVEWARE 2010
Black Gulf Oilfield Services
Dear Ms. Subaru,
Thank you very much for the opportunity to perform a SCAMPI B in your organization. As a whole, I
found the people were very responsive and forthcoming. Your processes seem sound and aligned with
your organizational goals. I support the current calendar that schedules a SCAMPI A for Maturity Level 3
process areas in six months. You could conceivably bring the date forward, by speeding up the process of
building the PII document, using more hands, but there is no reason for that to take place.
As an appendix, I’ve included the habitual report. It describes the organizational scope and the model
scope, this is to say, the process areas that were appraised using the SCAMPI B method. For each process
area, the report covers weaknesses and strengths, and, if appropriate, improvement opportunities that you
should read as comments from the team. This time, however, being it the first time your organization has
been appraised using the CMMI-SVC model, I’ve gone beyond the normal structure of our report and
have given you anaccount of each procedure you follow and how it supports the model, so that when the
organization discusses changes to your processes it keeps this in mind.
Your personnel were impressive in their support for this effort. In particular, Pat O’Brien, in his double
role as team member and site coordinator, providing us with victuals, anecdotes and fun stories; Suzanne
Perez, who graces every team with her poise and winning smile, and of course, yourself, without whose
sponsorship none of this would have happened.
Respectfully yours,
Jorge Boria.

2. © LIVEWARE 2010
Contents
Black Gulf Oilfield Services ........................................................................................................................1
Organizational Scope..........................................................................................................................2
Model Scope.......................................................................................................................................2
Background ........................................................................................................................................3
Findings per Process Area.......................................................................................................................4
Requirements Management ................................................................................................................4
Service System Development.............................................................................................................4
Risk Management...............................................................................................................................5
Service Delivery.................................................................................................................................6
Incident Resolution and Prevention....................................................................................................6
Capacity and Availability Management .............................................................................................7
Service System Transition..................................................................................................................8
Service Continuity..............................................................................................................................8
Strategic Service Management ...........................................................................................................9
Organizational Scope
Black Gulf is the leading oilfield services provider, trusted to deliver superior results and improved
performance for oil and gas companies around the world. Through well site operations and research and
engineering facilities, BG is working to develop products, services and solutions that optimize customer
performance in a safe and environmentally sound manner.
The BG organization covers end to end reservoir management, from prospecting, exploring, drilling and
extracting to recovery and closing. BG’s divisions are loaded with experience and have the best record in
the industry. The object of this appraisal was the Drilling Group, a division that encompasses Well
Drilling, Directional Drilling, Measuring While Drilling, Logging While Drilling and Well Casing. Other
divisions were not appraised in this SCAMPI, as BG has determined the Drilling Group to take the lead in
using, understanding and being appraised using the CMMI-SVC constellation.
Model Scope
The decision to include or exclude process areas of the CMMI-SVC model was taken jointly by the Lead
Appraiser, Jorge Boria, and the sponsor, Eileen Subaru, based on the previous experience of the
organization with the CMMI-DEV. The Drilling Group was assessed at ML2 of the CMMI-DEV three
years ago, and was involved in achieving ML3. The group was the subject of a gap analysis that
confirmed that the organizational areas, the project management areas and the support areas were ready to
undergo a ML SCAMPI A against the CMMI-DEV, but that the engineering process areas had to undergo
several improvements before being ready.
At that time the SEI announced the creation of the CMMI-SVC and BG decided to apply a DAR to the
decision on whether to move or not to the new constellation. The return on investment was favorable to
moving to services, and the decision was made. The service-specific process areas were not reviewed
previously. Hence, the reduced scope of this appraisal includes them all. As the changes to the processes
are very comprehensive, we also included risk management in the model scope, because it is a
fundamental part of the whole sequence in more than one occasion. Finally, we have added requirements

3. © LIVEWARE 2010
management, because the changes from the engineering focus to the service focus in the definition of the
components call for a complete review of the traceability procedures. In short, the model scope is as
follows:
 Requirements Management
 Service System Development
 Risk Management
 Service Delivery
 Incident Resolution and Prevention
 Capacity and Availability Management
 Service System Transition
 Service Continuity
 Strategic Service Management
Background
Although the process areas organizational process definition and organizational process focus were out of
scope, our schedule included a presentation by Mr. AaronDovrat on the process asset library and the
overall structure of the organizational assets. He explained with great wit and very concisely that there is
but one process that is followed in every new contract definition, based loosely on the DMAIC model:
The first step in to define the project and customer demands, which maps to the first goal of the Work
Planning Process Area, and to the whole set of specific practices of the Requirements Management
Process Area. Using the knowledge thus gained the project team maps the services into a set of products
and services from which they next derive the service levels agreements. This, according to Mr. Dovrat,
maps into the Service System Development Process Area. The team next refines their first contract draft
by analyzing obstacles to process efficiency and any potential time traps that the services can have. They
use practices of the Risk Management Process Area. With that in mind, they approach the customer to
make a contract proposal. In the proposal the process flow is drawn in detail and the competitive
advantages of BG Drilling are highlighted, as waste avoidance and quicker times to drill and less time out
of the hole. This contract sets the stage for Service Delivery. Once a contract is entered, the crew is
assigned and the overall capacity is assessed. The contract manager plans the work in detail and controls
its execution. Any incident is captured, attended to, and, if applicable, prevented from recurring.The
Research and Development Engineering Center in Cambridge, MA, is constantly challenging the
technology, and its creation give way to new products and services. Only twelve years ago logging while
drilling was in its initial stages, as was directional drilling. These innovations have helped BG capture a
global market. At the Drilling Group, management periodically reviews its commitments and updates the
group’s technology, making use of practices inspired by Service System Transition. All hands, at all

4. © LIVEWARE 2010
levels, and the customers, have access to a knowledge database called Talk To Me, even if part of it is
restricted to employees only.
Findings per Process Area
Requirements Management
BG has an overarching agreement with the big international oil companies. Such framework agreements
are used as reference when a contract is discussed within a district. The district manager of BG and the
customer, who are best suited to understand the particulars of the geology and logistics involved, discuss
the specifics. A first step is to identify the kind of service involved. From the simplest vertical drilling to
a complex measuring and logging while drilling directionally with five different tools involved in the
measurements, the two district managers measure pros and cons together. These talks, usually covered in
one meeting, are recorded in the memorandum of agreement.
BG District Manager takes it to his technical managers, who use the risk analysis tools (see RSKM
findings) to discuss options and list the components to be able to plan services and track them to
completion. From this list they derive a general strategy that involves the resources at play and, when
they are happy that they can make it happen, they move on to plan the delivery system in detail. Usually
they change some of the requirements based on the risk analysis and this makes them add to the list of
components and changes the scope. They manage this throughout the contract duration to balance all
stakeholders’ needs. At the end of this activity they have a set of tasks and a potential service agreement.
Evidence reviewed:
REQM SP1.1 Understand Requirements: Memorandum of Agreement, Signed Contract.
REQM SP1.2 Obtain Commitment to Requirements: Technical Manager Meeting Minutes, Final Project
Approach Draft (see SSD)
REQM SP1.3 Manage Requirements Changes: Final Project Approach Draft, Section History of Changes
REQM SP1.4 Maintain Bidirectional Traceability: Task Management Tool, supported by a presentation
by two project managers.
REQM SP1.5 Ensure Alignment Between Work Products and Requirements: Same as above.
Weaknesses:
None found
Strengths:
None found
Improvement Opportunities:
Consider using the task management tool as the sole repository of the service requirements, other than the
contractual agreement, to avoid duplication of entries in the system.
Service System Development
Starting from their list of components, the Technical Managers select a project manager and discuss the
strategy with her. She usually addsher own changes to the list. They discuss availability of personnel and
mechanical resources (trucks, bits, derricks) and other time constraints (weather, day duration, customer
expectations)that have impact on the contract and that allow them to understand how they will have to
design the delivery system.
From their previous experience on the job, they design a blueprint based on the most recent past jobs of
similar nature that comprises all the logical and physical components to provide the service.This model is
simulated using a queuing theory software simulator that takes into account past performance, so that
they make sure that the service requests can be honored and that all steps have been contemplated.
Sometimes a parameter or two are off and require adjusting the steps or creating a backup. Once the
model is working within bounds, the newly appointed contract manager takes the blueprints to the
customer, agrees on the contract terms and makes changes as needed with the customer. They go through
a list of risk factors and identify mitigation, avoidance and contingency actions. This refined draft is sent

5. © LIVEWARE 2010
to the legal departments to be signed. The legal aspects of the contract are outside the scope of this
appraisal.
Once the contract is firm, the contract manager enters the tasks in the Task Manager Tool and selects the
team based on capability and availability (these steps actually are evidence of Work Planning). She then
holds a kickoff meeting with the team on the day previous to the beginning of well activities and goes
over the details with them. Sometimes an expert hand reveals possible flaws on the plan and the team
suggests improvements, which are incorporated into the design. At this meeting the team checks the
physical availability of parts and components and dress rehearsal of the first week of activities is
performed. The activity is called Borehole Choreography and concludes the effective design of the
service.
Before breaking for the evening the team puts together all the components in the yard and tests them.
They then disassemble components and get the trucks ready for the first day. At dawn the team leaves the
yard and arrives at the customer’s site. They start building the infrastructure and putting the components
together. They go over the steps once more and simulate the activities before actually beginning the
drilling process. The purpose is to avoid all dangerous situations by avoiding minimal disturbances. The
team works like coordinated chess pieces in the field.
Evidence Reviewed:
SSD SP1.1 Develop Stakeholder Requirements: Initial component list, mentioned in the project
managers’ presentation.
SSD SP1.2 Develop Service System Requirements: Blueprints of service, as presented in the Technical
Managers interview showing the use of the simulation and queuing tools.
SSD SP1.3 Analyze and Validate Requirements: See above.
SSD SP2.1 Select Service System Solutions: See above.
SSD SP2.2 Develop the Design: Borehole Choreography Manager Notes, as presented in Project
Managers’ presentations.
SSD SP2.3 Ensure Interface Compatibility: See above. Also indirect evidence is provided via the
Daybreak Review Process.
SSD SP2.4 Implement the Service System Design: See above, Borehole Choreography.
SSD SP2.5 Integrate Service System Components: Checklist of Daybreak Review Process.
Weaknesses:
Not all incidents identified in the Daybreak Review find their way to the Incidents DB.
Strengths:
The use of risk management and simulation processes make the service providers very comfortable with
the job much before the actual service is supplied.
Improvement Opportunities:
None suggested.
Risk Management
Risk management is not just a process in BG; it is a way of life. The Quality Manual defines every
procedure in terms of the risks identified. It is only natural that the first process defined is risk
assessment. The manual identifies risk sources, categories, parameters and sets criteria for adopting one
of three accepted risk strategies. Armed with this information, the Technical Managers do a first pass at
identifying risks and evaluating them. This initial pass is furthered and revised by the PM initially and by
the whole team at the kick-off meeting (see Service Delivery). The evaluation leads to priorities and this
in turn, applying the strategy criteria, to avoidance, mitigation, and contingency planning. Any actions
coming from these find their way to the Task Management Tool.
Evidence Reviewed:
SP 1.1 Determine Risk Sources and Categories: Quality Manual, as presented by Mr.Dovrat.
SP 1.2 Define Risk Parameters: See above.
SP 1.3 Establish a Risk Management Strategy: See above.
SP 2.1 Identify Risks: Task Manager Tool, as presented in interviews by two project managers.

6. © LIVEWARE 2010
SP 2.2 Evaluate, Categorize, and Prioritize Risks: See above.
SP 3.1 Develop Risk Mitigation Plans: See above.
SP 3.2 Implement Risk Mitigation Plans: See above.
Weaknesses:
None found.
Strengths:
None found.
Improvement Opportunities:
None suggested.
Service Delivery
The team has found that the practices of SSD are well implemented and support all evidence required for
SD SP1.1 Analyze Existing Agreements and Service Data, since the design of the service system
completely covers the practice.The contractual agreement defines the parameters of the operation at the
well. Right from the beginning the approach was clearly defined and reviewed by multiple experts and
the customer, identifying all resources and personnel to be used in the Task Manager Tool. Before
leaving the yard, every person knows his or her role and has gone through the motions of the tasks for the
first day. Every morning, before going back to the customer’s site, the team holds a meeting at the team’s
room and calibrates the tools. Any discrepancies are fixed and logged. If an emergency replacement is
needed for any given role, there is an operations’ manual at hand and the right person for the job is called
andbrought up to speedbefore leaving for the wellsite.
The District Manager is the person in charge of the reception of all service requests and all new contracts,
and is the person to go to when there is a problem that was not solved in the wellsite, but it is the project
manager who defines the details and manages the team that performs the services. Tools are run from the
truck via computer software, and all data are recorded and saved for future analysis and estimation use.
Any problem detected in the system components is fixed on the spot or the component is replaced. All
components have scheduled preventative maintenance performed on them. BG has a hot shot company
under contract that can pick up an expert from the yard and take them to the wellsite in less than an hour
where they can perform all corrective maintenance, as needed (SD SP3.3 Maintain the Service System).
Evidence Reviewed:
SD SP1.1 Analyze Existing Agreements and Service Data: Blueprints of service, as presented in the
Technical Managers interview showing the use of the simulation and queuing tools. Company framework
agreements.
SD SP1.2 Establish the Service Agreement: Contractual agreement.
SD SP2.1 Establish the Service Delivery Approach: Task Management Tool, supported by a presentation
by two project managers.
SD SP2.2 Prepare for Service System Operations: Completed Checklists of Daybreak Review Process.
SD SP2.3 Establish a Request Management System: District Manager Job Description; Contractual
Obligations Folder containing all standing contracts and framework agreements.
SD SP3.1 Receive and Process Service Requests: Customer satisfaction survey results. Closed contracts.
Open contracts.
SD SP3.2 Operate the Service System: Service logs, Task Management Tool, supported by a presentation
by two project managers.
Weaknesses:
None found.
Strengths:
The use of risk management and simulation processes make the service providers very comfortable with
the job much before the actual service is supplied.
Improvement Opportunities:
None suggested.
Incident Resolution and Prevention

7. © LIVEWARE 2010
As a fundamental tenet of BG is safety in the workplace, all incidents are taken very seriously. Major
incidents are accidents in the hole, like kicks that can set the well on fire and even kill workers. These
incidents are subject to in-depth investigations that can cost managers their careers at BG. Minor
incidents are lateness and disagreements with the customer’s personnel, and they are usually handled at
the District Manager level, but because BG wants to excel in customer satisfaction these are also taken
very seriously. In between layall the other typical incidents: loss of data, reruns, unexpected delays due to
unexpected geologies, bit drops and recoveries; in sum all the incidents that make a workday. The Quality
Manual defines how to recognize and classify incidents, the criteria to set their severity, and the different
processes that have to be followed. Once a year all hands have to go through a week-long technology
update training in the Drilling School in Lafayette, where they spend one day reviewing the QM and have
to pass a test on it at the end. New hires spend three weeks at the school, learning how to use all tools and
the processes.
The project manager is responsible for recording the data in the Q DB. Taking leads from the QM, she is
responsible for an action plan aimed at the resolution of the incident. All actions and status are recorded
in the Q DB. If need be, she can request help from the Technical Managers. Anyway, the Technical
managers review the Q DB weekly, calling in the project manager as appropriate. They analyze the
datafor open status, trends and outliers. Occasionally something requires especial treatment and they use
DAR techniques or causal analysis, as they see fit. For the some incidents the team has defined and uses
established solutions. These are added to the Talk To Me KB.
Evidence Reviewed:
IRP SP1.1 Establish an Approach to Incident Resolution and Prevention: Quality Manual, supported by
interview affirmations.
IRP SP1.2 Establish an Incident Management System: Quality Database, supported by interview
affirmations.
IRP SP2.1 Identify, Control and Address Individual Incidents: See above.
IRP SP2.2 Analyze Individual Incident Data: See above.
IRP SP2.3 Resolve Incidents: See above.
IRP SP2.4 Monitor the Status of Incidents to Closure: See above.
IRP SP2.5 Communicate the Status of Incidents: See above.
IRP SP3.1 Analyze Selected Incident Data: Technical Staff Weekly Meeting Minutes.
IRP SP3.2 Establish Solutions to Respond to Future Incidents:
IRP SP 3.3 Establish and Apply Solutions to Reduce Incident Occurrence:
Weaknesses:
None found.
Strengths:
None found.
Improvement Opportunities:
None found.
Capacity and Availability Management
During the weekly meetings of the Technical Managers they review the district capacity and availability
trends from the Task Management Tool. The oilfield services industry is both seasonal and cyclical in
nature. A lead indicator of activities is the future price of sweet oil. BG uses a tool called Horizon to
predict activity based on this and pipeline history. The data generated by this software tool is reviewed
against local data, adjusted pipeline parameters (for example, Calgary, Alberta, has a longer lead time
than Bakersfield, CA) and seasonal holidays (vacation too). This is the initial baseline for resources. Then
each service is analyzed based on prospected jobs, contracted future jobs, and open jobs. Each service has
its own representation that is simulated (see SSD) and analyzed for capacity. Using maintenance tables
and predicted demand of each component, slack capacity is managed to secure availability targets.
Districts have a ‘knock for knock’ policy by which, if required by demand pressures, they lend each other
equipment. One major concern is the derrick, since it is the main component of a drilling rig and there are

8. © LIVEWARE 2010
times when demand overruns all capacity and oxidized derricks are brought back into operation by
companies less responsible than BG.
Evidence Reviewed:
CAM SP1.1Establish a Capacity and Availability Management Strategy: Horizon Users’ Manual.
CAM SP1.2 Select Measures and Analytic Techniques: Horizon, as presented by Technical Managers.
CAM SP1.3 Establish Service System Representations: Blueprints of service, as presented in the
Technical Managers interview showing the use of the simulation and queuing tools.
CAM SP2.1Monitor and Analyze Capacity: Blueprints of service, as presented in the Technical Managers
interview showing the use of the simulation and queuing tools.
CAM SP2.2 Monitor and Analyze Availability:
CAM SP2.3 Report Capacity and Availability Management Data
Weaknesses:
None found.
Strengths:
None found.
Improvement Opportunities:
Consider having at-hand hot shots to reduce costs of slack components, or sharing the most expensive
components with mom and pop local companies.
Service System Transition
Regularly BG introduces improvements to the technical components, from software to new tools.
Occasionally a whole new product is released to the Districts. Every change, big or small, is carefully
rehearsed. Components of service system are introduced by updating the Task Management Tool
configuration items. Using the simulation tools the Technical Team reviews all internal and external
interfaces to understand the impact of the changes. Using this they define an action plan that includes
presentations to prospective customers and training the hands. When a prospect contracts a service that
requires a significant component change, a plan for deployment of the changed service system
components into the delivery environment is designed and executed. During the training all hands have a
say on the changes and lessons learned from the training are recorded for future reference.
Evidence Reviewed:
SST SP1.1 Analyze Service System Transition Needs: Technical Staff Weekly Meeting Minutes.
SST SP1.2 Develop Service System Transition Plans: See above.
SST SP1.3 Prepare Stakeholders for Changes: District Tactical Training Plans and Records.
SST SP2.1 Deploy Service System Components: See SSD.
SST SP2.2 Assess and Control the Impacts of the Transition: Technical Staff Weekly Meeting Minutes.
Weaknesses:
None found.
Strengths:
None found.
Improvement Opportunities:
None found.
Service Continuity
The QM document establishes the framework for Catastrophe Recovery Planning. Each District
reassesses its own catastrophic risk at the District Annual Meeting of Hands. Usually held in December of
each year at a local hotel, the day covers lessons learned, awareness and the State of the District
presentation by the District Manager. Districts are either off-shore or on-shore, and are worried by
hurricanes, extreme weather conditions (Alaska has that problem), earthquakes (Bakersfield), tsunamis
(Louisiana off-shore) and the like. In some districts there the only possible activity is to evacuate in
presence of a catastrophe, in others the concept of graceful degradation applies. Because the customer
usually suffers from the same phenomena, there is not much that is expected by them from BG, still there
are some action plans that are reviewed by the QA manager routinely and when the weather service draws
attention to special conditions.

9. © LIVEWARE 2010
Evidence Reviewed:
SCON SP1.1 Identify and Prioritize Essential Functions: District Catastrophe Recovery Plan.
SCON SP1.2 Identify and Prioritize Essential Resources: See above.
SCON SP2.1 Establish Service Continuity Plans: See above.
SCON SP2.2 Establish Service Continuity Training: See above. Also, District Tactical Training Plans and
Records.
SCON SP2.3 Provide and Evaluate Service Continuity Training: District Tactical Training Plans and
Records.
SCON SP3.1 Prepare for the Verification and Validation of the Service Continuity Plan: District
Catastrophe Recovery Plan.
SCON SP3.2 Verify and Validate the Service Continuity Plan: District Annual All Hands Meeting
Records.
SCON SP3.3 Analyze Results of Verification and Validation of the Service Continuity Plan: See above.
Weaknesses:
The catastrophe recovery plan does not make a distinction between an essential and non-essential
function.
The plan was not validated in a reasonable environment, only inspected by personnel.
The evidence linking tactical training to the catastrophe recovery plan is weak.
The results of the analysis of the plan are not fully documented.
Strengths:
None found.
Improvement Opportunities:
None found.
Strategic Service Management
Strategic directions are not part of the districts’ mission and function. However, district managers are
required to participate in two annual conventions, one in Kuala Lumpur and one in Aberdeen, to review
the results and direction of BG’s R&D organizations around the globe. The last day BG’s Business
Consulting VP presents the services that will be made available in the next six months, describing how to
position them, and how they dovetail with existing components.
Evidence Reviewed:
STSM SP1.1 Gather and Analyze Data: Not available to the team.
STSM SP1.2 Establish Plans for Standard Services: Not available to the team.
STSM SP2.1 Establish Properties of Standard Services and Service Levels: Business Consulting New
Products Review.
STSM SP2.2 Establish Descriptions of Standard Services: See above.
Weaknesses:
The team was unable to review documentation about the process of establishing strategic needs and plans
for standard services. As part of the planning for the SCAMPI A BG should consider making this
evidence available and an interview with the Business Consulting area should be arranged.
Strengths:
None found.
Improvement Opportunities:
None found.
Austin, December 2010.