Benchmarking On Standards and Technical Specifications

REPORT JUNE
500 2015
Benchmarking on standards and

technical specifications
standards strategy
Acknowledgements
Standards Committee
Photography used with permission courtesy of ©itjoestheim/

iStockphoto and shironosov/iStockphoto (Front cover) and
©michaelmjc/iStockphoto (Back cover)
Disclaimer
Whilst every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of the information
contained in this publication, neither IOGP nor any of its members past present or
future warrants its accuracy or will, regardless of its or their negligence, assume
liability for any foreseeable or unforeseeable use made thereof, which liability is
hereby excluded. Consequently, such use is at the recipient’s own risk on the basis
that any use by the recipient constitutes agreement to the terms of this disclaimer.
The recipient is obliged to inform any subsequent recipient of such terms.
This publication is made available for information purposes and solely for the private
use of the user. IOGP will not directly or indirectly endorse, approve or accredit the
content of any course, event or otherwise where this publication will be reproduced.
Copyright notice
The contents of these pages are © International Association of Oil & Gas Producers.
Permission is given to reproduce this report in whole or in part provided (i) that
the copyright of IOGP and (ii) the sources are acknowledged. All other rights are
reserved. Any other use requires the prior written permission of IOGP.
These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance

with the laws of England and Wales. Disputes arising here from shall be exclusively
subject to the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.
REPORT JUNE
500 2015
Benchmarking on standards and

technical specifications
Revision history
VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS
1.0 June 2015 First release

Acknowledgements
Standards Committee.
Great thanks go to the participating companies and especially Total for providing the resources for assembling
the benchmarking results, analysis of the data and drafting the participants’ report.
Foreword
The IOGP Standards Committee decided to launch a benchmarking exercise across the IOGP membership
on the existence and use of internal company specifications, company strategies on the use and production of
national and international standards and the implications of document management.
A first benchmarking survey was carried out in 2008. The related report was published for participating IOGP
Members in October 2009.
It was later agreed to make a summary public. IOGP Report 450 was published in February 2011.
The IOGP Standards Committee initiated a second benchmark survey in 2013 to assess changes in
specification and standards development strategies, use of standards and trends in the key benchmarking
criteria. The benchmarking questionnaire, which was focussed on upstream activities, was distributed to IOGP
operating company Members in April 2013. Its responses were received from July to September 2013.
The summary of the complete details and analysis were discussed with the twenty-two benchmarking
participants early in 2014 and the final benchmarking participants report was distributed in May 2014.
This IOGP public report provides a summary of the latest benchmarking results.
For easier reference, most question of the questionnaire is repeated before the analysis.
In order to obtain more objective comparison and to see the evolution between 2008 and 2013 benchmarks,
when deemed necessary and for certain questions, additional comparisons are also made amongst the 12
companies participating in both benchmarking studies.
Note: There are instances whereby a company did not answer all the questions in the survey. The number of
responses received for each question is provided where relevant. There are questions from the 2008 survey
that were not repeated in the 2013 survey, hence there are gaps in the numbering of questions in this report.
There are also gaps in the numbering of figures and tables in order to keep an easy alignment with the
participants’ report.
Definitions
external standards
international, regional, national and industry standards, established by consensus and approved by a
recognized body (e.g. ISO, ANSI, API, BSI, CEN, NEN, EFC), that provides, for common and repeated use,
rules, guidelines or characteristics for activities or their results, aimed at the achievement of the optimum
degree of order in a given context
company specifications
internal company technical specifications, internal company standards, design and engineering practices, etc.
prepared by companies for their own repeated use for call for tenders, contracts and purchase orders. This
questionnaire does not consider internal policies, procedures, forms, drawings, guides, manuals, etc.
Executive Summary
The IOGP Standards Committee launched a benchmarking survey in 2008 across the IOGP operating
company membership on company specifications and external standards and received 18 replies (out of
about 50 potential IOGP E&P company members) from companies covering about a third of the global oil and
gas production.
The benchmarking exercise was repeated in 2013. This time 22 companies replied (out of about 60 potential)
with 12 of them having participated in both 2008 and 2013.
New participants came mostly from Asia & Australia and from the Americas. Fewer Middle East companies
participated in 2013 compared to 2008. Altogether, the 22 respondents to the 2013 survey accounts for a
similar third of the global oil and gas production which is an excellent basis for the analysis in this report.
With a few exceptions, the average number of company specifications per discipline in 2013 was significantly
reduced compared to 2008 figures. In terms of average number of company specifications per company,
comparison between 2008 and 2013 amongst the 12 companies participating in both benchmark shows
decreasing numbers.
This can be explained as mainly due to rationalization of company specifications and to better adoption of
external standards. Some companies show significant difference between the two benchmarks but this has
been confirmed by them. At any rate, even if the survey show a good reduction, it goes without saying that the
large remaining numbers of specifications take a lot of company resources to maintain in order to keep them
current and still useful.
Regarding utilization of company specifications, in 9 of 21 cases the same set of company specifications are
commonly shared by the different industry segments (upstream, downstream, chemicals…). Otherwise, in 10
of 21 cases, each industry segment is fully independent to produce and manage its own set of documents.
Overall, there are a lot of references quoting external standards in company specifications.
• In the 2013 survey, a total of 8,172 referenced standards from as many as over 180 different
organizations (see Appendix A) are referenced by the eight participating companies providing this
particular information.
• In the 2008 survey, 5,237 titles were referenced from 130 different organizations also from eight (but
somewhat different) companies.
Clearly, use of external standards is increasing. Like in 2008, the 2013 benchmark results show ISO and
ASTM being the two most referenced groups of standards. IOGP Report 381, Position paper on the
development and use of international standards may well have influenced the reduction in company
specifications and increased choice of reference of external standards in the international direction.
Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 2

With regards to ISO/TC67, 155 out of 157 published standards at the end of 2012 are referenced by the
companies with ISO 13628-1, Petroleum and natural gas industries – Design and operation of subsea
production systems – Part 1: General requirements and recommendations and ISO 15156, Petroleum and
natural gas industries – Materials for use in H2S-containing environments in oil and gas production being the
two standards most referenced by 7 of the 8 companies.
As for the 2008 survey, this benchmarking survey shows that there is a large difference in operating
companies’ participation in external standardization work. Many of the companies are not deeply involved in
the works of external standards organizations. Some majors carry a heavy burden, while other operating
companies are happy to make use of the standards and harvest their benefits, but they take no part in the
standards development process. Actions should be taken to involve more operating companies in external
standardization work.
An interesting observation is that on an overall basis companies overall put nearly four times as much effort
into the management and development of their own specifications than they do in external standardization
activities. At an IOGP workshop in July 2014 analysing the benchmarking results and discussing potential
improvements, it was agreed that a 50/50 split would be more productive. This means that external standards
efforts should be doubled and in-house specification work reduced accordingly.

General
Twenty-two IOGP member companies completed the 2013 questionnaire. Twelve companies participated in
the benchmarks of both 2008 and 2013.
Figure 1 Base region of the companies taken into account
2008
Middle
East Americas
Americas: 6 (2008: 3) Middle 3
2 Americas East
Asia & Australia: 4 (2008: 1) Asia
6 5 1
Europe: 10 (2008: 9)
Middle East: 2 (2008: 5)
Europe
Total: 22 (2008: 18) 10 Asia & Europe
Australia 9
4
The total estimated production of the companies that completed the questionnaire represents about 34% of
the total worldwide production. A significant portion of global oil and gas production is represented in this
benchmarking survey, suggesting that the results are highly relevant.
Part 1 – Company specifications

This questionnaire relates to upstream documents only. However, due to their company organization, some of
the participating companies could not restrict their responses only to upstream. The responses to this are
reflected in Figure 3 (20 companies responded).
Figure 3 Segments considered for the answer by the companies
Upstream,
downstream and
Upstream
chemicals
only
Upstream and 15%

downstream
15%
70%
Q1.1 Is the same set of company specifications commonly shared by the different industry
segments (upstream, downstream, chemicals…)?
Q1.2 If not, is each industry segment fully independent to produce and manage its own set of
documents?
In 43% of cases, the same set of company specifications is commonly shared by the different industry
segments (upstream, downstream, chemicals…). This is no change from the 2008 benchmarking survey.
Otherwise, in 83% of cases, each industry segment is fully independent to produce and manage its own set of
documents within the companies.

Q1.3 Is there a network to organize the sharing of knowledge between the different segments?
75% of the companies have a set of networks that organize the sharing of knowledge. These networks are
either internal (through specific groups, knowledge management, internal websites, etc.) or, in some cases,
external (national or professional bodies).
This is slightly higher than in the 2008 benchmarking survey and thus is considered to be an improvement.
Q1.4 Do you have a steering committee to manage the strategy (annual plans, budgets, etc.)?
73% of the companies have a steering committee to manage the strategy (annual plans, budgets…).
Only one of the major companies doesn't have a steering committee.
In 2008, 89% of the companies had a steering committee, meaning the 2013 survey represents a reduction of
this feature.
Q1.7 What are the different main categories of company specifications in your company and give
definition of these categories? (identify and define)
This question was based on the different main categories of company specifications. The definition given to
each company specification was: Internal company technical specifications, internal company standards,
design and engineering practices, etc. prepared by the company itself for its own repeated use. The answers
are now more precise than those in 2008.
We can generally find four main categories:
• technical specifications, technical standards (including drawings and forms)

• procedures, work instructions
• guidelines, recommended practices, manuals
• policies, company rules, directives.
In the last category, four companies included the documents intended only or primarily for company internal
use.
Q1.8 Which type of documents specified are mandatory?
Most companies responded that their group practice, group instruction for supply, technical specifications,
technical standards, policies, company rules, directives, etc. are mandatory, whereas some companies leave
this to the individual engineering department or project to decide, e.g. in their tender/contract documents.
Some companies reflect that any of the company specifications could have requirements that could be
considered as mandatory, but not necessarily the entire document.
Guides and manuals are mainly non-mandatory and prepared for internal company use only.
Q1.9 Do you have a derogation (deviation handling system, exemptions, waivers, etc.) process?
Q1.10 If yes, explain this process for upstream or attach the relative documents to your answer
77% of the companies have a derogation process. No significant changes since 2008 in the process, except 3
companies have a specific process for derogations related to wells. Most of the companies require the
approval of a technical committee and/or an authority structure. The final structure that approves the
derogation could be:
• Management structure in business units; and/or

• Technical committee (in projects or business units).
In a few cases, the approval level is defined by the risk level given by a risk assessment.

Q1.11 What are the total number of company specifications and pages per discipline?
We have considered the total number of documents given by discipline in all the answers:
• Average number of documents: 453 (770 in 2008)
• Average number of pages: 28 (25 in 2008).
This represents a significant reduction of 34% in average number of total pages in a specification collection.
Figure 4 shows the total number of documents per company and the average number of page per document
when indicated. Total number of pages amounts to about 200,000 for the 22 respondents.
This is a very large amount of detailed and sometimes complex technical documents. To get an idea of the
amount, if all the documents were stacked in an office, there would be eight stacks of documents from the
floor to the roof. One to two of these stacks of specifications will have to be revised every year.
Figure 4 Number of documents per company and average number of page per document
Number of documents average number of pages

Documents Pages
1000 60
2397 1515
50
800
40
600
30
400
20
200
10
0 0
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V

Table 5 Average number of documents by discipline – lowest and highest
Average
2013 number by Low est Highest
discipline
Civil engineering, civil w orks 16 0 105
Drilling and w ells 17 0 60
Electrical 47 0 293
Geology / Reservoir 7 0 75
HSE 40 3 135
HVAC 3 0 36
Instrumentation 37 0 203
Maintenance and Inspection 23 0 190
Marine operations 8 0 43
Material including corrosion 26 0 82
Mechanical incl. rotating
61 3 322
equipment, tanks & vessels
Offshore structures 13 0 60
Pipelines 25 0 155
Piping & Valves 33 0 314
Process and Design 21 0 159
Subsea 12 0 47
Telecommunications 7 0 26
Welding 7 0 31
others 51 0 650
Sum 453 6 2986
Figure 5 Average number of documents by discipline
Average number by discipline

70
60
50
40
30
20
10

Five disciplines show a great number of documents, with 30 or more on average:
1. mechanical including rotating equipment, tanks and vessels
2. electrical
3. HSE
4. instrumentation
5. piping and valves.
For many years, there have been a significant effort in international standards work for the oil and gas industry
in the drilling, wells, offshore structures, mechanical discipline, but much less for the electrical, HSE and
instrumentation disciplines.
There appears to be a significant volume of company specifications for the same subject that probably
contains similar statements by the individual companies that could lend themselves to be the basis for
international standardization.
IOGP has already taken steps in this direction by establishing the Instrument & Automation, Electrical and
Piping & Valves standards subcommittees. This survey suggests these were appropriate steps to take. HSE is
an area for further discussion – talks with IOGP Safety committee have already started.
Figure 6 – Average number of documents by discipline – comparisons with 2008 data

(lowest/highest excluded)
2013 average 2008 average
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
As shown in Figure 6, the average number of documents by discipline has been reduced in comparison with
2008 results but, in a few disciplines, there is an increase, e.g. in HSE and subsea. Subsea may be explained
by the increasing volume of subsea activities, but the HSE increase could possibly be attributed to less activity
in the international standards area for this discipline compared to others.

Figure 8 Comparison of the average number of documents by discipline with 2008 and 2013
benchmarking for the 12 companies participating in both surveys
2013 average 2008 average
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
A comparison of the 12 companies in both surveys (Figure 8) confirms that a number of disciplines have
reduced average number of specifications per company. In some disciplines, there was an increase (HSE and
subsea but here also pipelines, and a few other disciplines) but numbers are small.
The time between two revisions of documents vary from 1 to 8 years, with an average around 3.6 years.
Three companies have no target but, when it exists, it is fixed from 1 to 5 years.
Q1.18 What criteria are employed to determine when a company specification should specify
different (more/less stringent) requirements than those specified in an external standard?
Industry standards are approved by consensus and may at times only specify the lowest common
denominator even though typical standard rules suggest a two-thirds majority for approval, i.e. unanimity is
not required. Most of the companies do not specify requirements less stringent than those defined in the
applicable standards.
Generally this decision is submitted to the expert appraisal with the help of lessons learned, internal
experience, peer industry practices and technology advances, benefits due to safety, environment and
efficiency.
It depends also on regional variations (local regulatory/law requirements) of engineering projects.
Criteria to determine when a company specification should specify different (more/less stringent) requirements
than those specified in an external standard can be technology, cost effectiveness, life-cycle management of
products, etc.

Verbatim answers provided by the respondents:
• The legal company specifications should be more stringent than the requirements which could be
from the country or local government legislation/standards. And for those international standards, the
company can choose to adopt it or not.
• It depends on hands-on experience and local environments.
• Whenever a failure or lesson learned dictates a more stringent requirement is required. This is
passed through internal subject matter experts for review of changes.
• Company-specific job requirements based on Document Custodian/Technical Authorities
observations and comments
• When the company consider it beneficial due to safety, environmental, efficiency, value creation to do
so. Implementing own lessons on top of existing external (international/industry) standards
• Local Regulatory/Law requirements, Company specific requirements, When regulations are not
adequately protective, Operations Integrity considerations including Human Factors, security, and
Environmental Aspects.
• Governmental regulations
• We have to provide a technical expertise of external standards to examine if they do not contradict to
the requirements of technical regulations and harmonized national standards
• If we based on our experience see a need for additional requirements
• Internal experience, lessons learned, regional variations
• It is determined by specialized Sub-Committees, when it is necessary to attend specific conditions of
our engineering projects
• No general criteria defined, ad hoc analysis is performed
• Only the specialist who has written the specifications can answer. Criteria can be technological, cost
effectiveness, life-cycle management of products…
• The criteria depends on the company specific requirements, local environmental
conditions/requirements and the local regulations
• For technical practices, each case is analysed by the technical authority
• For drilling and completion specifications, each case is subject to be dispensated in a formal
document after careful review and risk mitigation has been documented and approved by the
technical authority, well team leader and the wells manager.
• Considerations for defining requirements include:
o Internal stakeholder issues and recommendations particularly in respect to cross discipline
interfaces and development, execution and operation functions performance objectives
o Feedback/lessons logged against a standard
o Peer industry practices and technology advances;
o Technical Integrity (Process Safety) enhancements based on ALARP principles; and
o Identified lifecycle value benefits.
The extent of technology qualification and/or cost benefit analysis undertaken to validate new or
changed standard requirements is commensurate with the complexity and magnitude of the change
and may range from simple cost calculations to formal technology qualification and value benefit
analysis
• Ad hoc evaluation, feedback from operating districts, local requirements. Normally we do not specify
requirements less stringent than those defined in the applicable standards
• Applicable legal requirements (mandatory if more stringent), company-policy requirements,
operational history and lesson learnt (after analysis and approval by technical authorities
• Criteria:
o Lessons learned from operating and project experience,
o Justification by subject matter expert(s) as part of annual review cycle and participation in
industry committees. Industry standards are approved by consensus and may at times only
specify the lowest common denominator.
o Must have global applicability, fill a gap/need, and be mature enough to form a cohesive,
stable spec.
• Criteria include risk, operability, maintainability and reliability
• This is based on a professional assessment within the discipline
• There are currently no explicit guidelines on this; in general this is left to the expertise and judgement
of the subject matter expert

Most criteria that is employed to determine when a company specifications should specify different (more/less
stringent) requirements than those specified in an external standard are reference to local regulations,
operational experience and analysis by the expert in charge.
Q1.19 What is the mechanism for specifying standard requirements to reflect technology advances,
lessons learned or standard errors pending inclusion of such requirements in the next revision of the
effected external standards?
Responses from all of the participants range from professional assessment within the discipline to systems
offering validated lessons, approved comments, levered deviations to be accessed directly from the document
or prompting the initiation of a revision.
Most of them rely on the judgement of the document custodian through:

• feedback process
• periodic review process
• knowledge management system.
One company make reference to a mechanism for evaluating retroactive applicability of new or updated
standards to existing facilities.
• A “User Feedback” system is in place

• A commenting a review process is in place
• We have in place a Knowledge Management System to capture new technologies and a Feed Back
process to consider the lessons learnt.
• The Company operates a web-based feed-back system in which the user community can post
comments to the internal standards. The custodian of the particular document has to respond
identifying any further actions (including opportunity to include any suggestions in future revision)
• There is a periodic review process for specifications based on lessons learned from prior company
and similar industries, updates from industry standards, new technologies, new regulations, etc…
Subject matter experts will review these requirements for applicability and these will be incorporated
in the specifications following review and approval by different level of authorities. In addition to this,
the company has a mechanism for evaluating retroactive applicability of new or updated standards to
existing facilities.
• Adopts from external/international standards and lessons learnt.
• Every issued standard comes from official agencies or industrial associations, if the user found any
mistake, they could feedback the technology advances, lessons learnt or standard errors, and also,
these agencies and associations also have regular meetings to consult the changes.
• The document is reviewed at its review interval to determine if new industry requirements or advances
should cause addition or subtraction of information. Changes between the review periods can be
caused by a lesson learned or at a change request by a user. The owner will determine if the request
will be held for the review period or have it immediately changed.
• Such will be implemented in our standards until the external (international/industry) standards are
updated.
• Regulatory changes, Information from users, Technical Forums
• Comments from technical experts
• Shared lessons and comments system which allows approved comments and validated lessons to be
accessed directly from practice
• It is prepared, a proposal to the corresponding Technical Committee to include it in the next revision
of the effected external standard.
• No formal mechanism defined. Technical Quality management process used to identify opportunities
for improvement
• No mechanism
• The criteria mainly depend on the custodian department request, project requirement or
recommendation by user department experts or contractors
• A Knowledge Management system is in place

• A feedback log is maintained which facilitates the registration and analysis of any issues or
prospective changes and prompts the initiation of a revision to the associated company standard.
The templates employed for the adoption or referencing of external standards include provision for
nominating specific amendments to the referenced standards which take precedence over the
referenced standard requirements.
• Answer:
o Feedback from users / technical authorities is directed to authors / specification owners for
consideration
o Amendments / interim documents are issued if appropriate in order to speed up the revision
process
o Periodic examination of internal specifications (after first year from publication, and at each
three years) may lead also to revision"
• Communication to our global standards advisors regarding the issue for inclusion into deviation
requests. We leverage our deviation process to ensure appropriate vetting
• Rely on the judgment of the SMEs that participate in the working groups that revise external
standards
• This is based on a professional assessment within the discipline
There may be some interesting learning from these responses that warrants further analysis by an IOGP
Standards Committee workshop or similar.

Part 2 – External standards
Q2.1 Does your company have a management approved strategy on use of ISO/IEC/ITU standards?
Twenty out of the companies responding have a management approved strategy on use of standards. This
question was answered positively by 89% in 2008. Therefore, overall there is no significant change.
Q2.2 What is the proportion (%) of company specifications based on a) International standards (ISO,
IEC, ITU) or b) Other external standards?
Note: “Based on” is intended to convey specifications that are based fully on an international or other
standard: in addition to the provisions of the standard referenced, it is possible that the company specification
contains a few supplementary requirements or modifications. In this case, the supplier would still be able to
deliver a standard product with a few modifications.
If a company specification makes reference to a standard but at the same time also contains a lot of separate
requirements that are not in line at all with the referenced standard, this can hardly be said to be a
specification “based on”.
The question on the proportion of the company specifications based on international or other standards
required some clarification. For the complete understanding of relation between standards and specification it
is important, but at the same time it is realized it may be difficult to respond to due to the large variance of
specification composition. Hence, the answers received after clarifications are widely distributed, as shown in
Figure 9.
Figure 9 Proportion of company specifications “based on”
international standard other external standard
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V
If we consider the number of documents in Figure 4 (Q1.11), the average proportion of company
specifications based on international standards is 24% and is 25% based on other external standards. Further
analysis would be required to understand this relationship properly.

Q2.3 Which are all the external standards referenced in your company specifications?
In the frame of this benchmarking on standardization, a list of standards referenced in the company
specifications have been requested from the participating companies: eight lists have been provided.
The total number of references is 8,172. Clearly, the availability and use of external standards is increasing.
These references come from as many as 180 different organizations. For the 2008 survey, there were about
5,000 references from 130 organizations. Some less frequently referenced or local governmental documents
are not included in this count.
The detailed list of referenced standards, sorted by organization for ISO, IEC, API, ASTM, ASME and others,
has been provided in a separate IOGP (Members only) report. In this report, each standard reference is
quoted one time only.
There are different ways in which the standards are referenced. A standard may be quoted by its generic
number (e.g. ‘ISO 13628’) without the precision of which part is used. Others will quote the part in question
(e.g. ‘ISO 13628-1’). In the latter case, the standard appears in the list with its generic number and also the
parts specified by some companies.
Some statistics have been completed on the number of references sorted by standards organization and on
the number of companies referencing the standard. For all the standards in the analysis hereafter, each title is
represented once only.
Figures 11a and 11b show the number of references to all standards sorted by standards organization limited
to about 40 organizations. In Figure 11a, the remaining are placed in “Others”.
Figure 11a Number of standards referenced sorted by organization – 2013
2013

Figure 11b Number of standards referenced sorted by organization – 2008
2008
This part of the benchmark will be subject for further studies and reported separately as mentioned above. But
here it is worth noting that a significant number of national standards from ABNT (Brazil) and SA (Australia)
have been included in the new 2013 data.
As many as 155 standards developed by ISO/TC67 of the 157 published at end of 2012 are referenced. This
reveals that practically all the ISO/TC67 published standards are taken into use. The distribution of the
number of companies referencing these standards is shown in Figure 15. Keep in mind that this is based on
only eight respondents to this particular information from the benchmarking survey.
Figure 15 Distribution of the number of ISO TC67 standards referenced by one or several
companies

Table 14 ISO TC67 standards referenced by five, six or seven companies
Standard Title
Referenced by seven companies

ISO 15156 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Materials for use in H2S-containing environments in oil and gas
production
ISO 13628-1 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Design and operation of subsea production systems – Part 1:
General requirements and recommendations
Referenced by six companies

ISO 3183 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Steel pipe for pipeline transportation systems
ISO 10423 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Drilling and production equipment – Wellhead and christmas
tree equipment
ISO 10438 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Lubrication, shaft sealing and control-oil systems
and auxiliaries
ISO 10441 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Flexible couplings for mechanical power
transmission – Special-purpose applications
ISO 11960 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Steel pipes for use as casing or tubing for wells
ISO 13623 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Pipeline transportation systems
Subsea wellhead and tree equipment
ISO 13679 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Procedures for testing casing and tubing connections
ISO 13680 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Corrosion-resistant alloy seamless tubes for use as casing, tubing
and coupling stock -- Technical delivery conditions
ISO 13702 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Control and mitigation of fires and explosions on offshore
production installations – Requirements and guidelines
ISO 13705 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Fired heaters for general refinery service
ISO 13706 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Air-cooled heat exchangers
ISO 15156-1 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Materials for use in H2S-containing environments in oil and gas
production – Part 1: General principles for selection of cracking-resistant materials
production – Part 2: Cracking-resistant carbon and low alloy steels, and the use of cast irons
production – Part 3: Cracking-resistant CRAs (corrosion-resistant alloys) and other alloys
ISO 17776 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Offshore production installations – Guidelines on tools and
techniques for hazard identification and risk assessment
ISO 23251 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Pressure-relieving and depressuring systems
Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Venting of atmospheric and low-pressure storage
ISO 28300
tanks
Referenced by five companies
ISO 10418 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Offshore production installations – Analysis, design, installation
and testing of basic surface process safety systems
ISO 10432 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Downhole equipment – Subsurface safety valve equipment
ISO 13503-2 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Completion fluids and materials – Part 2: Measurement of
properties of proppants used in hydraulic fracturing and gravel-packing operations
Unbonded flexible pipe systems for subsea and marine applications
Completion/workover riser systems

Remotely Operated Vehicle (ROV) interfaces on subsea production systems
ISO 13703 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Design and installation of piping systems on offshore production
platforms
ISO 13704 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Calculation of heater-tube thickness in petroleum refineries
ISO 14313 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Pipeline transportation systems – Pipeline valves
ISO 15138 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Offshore production installations – Heating, ventilation and air-
conditioning
ISO 15547 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Plate-type heat exchangers
Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Plate type heat exchangers – Plate and Frame
ISO 15547-1
Heat Exchangers
ISO 15589-1 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Cathodic protection of pipeline transportation systems – Part 1:
On-land pipelines
ISO 15589-2 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Cathodic protection of pipeline transportation systems – Part 2:
Offshore pipelines
ISO 16812 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries – Shell-and-tube heat exchangers
ISO 19900 Petroleum and natural gas industries – General requirements for offshore structures
ISO 19901-5 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Specific requirements for offshore structures – Part 5: Weight
control during engineering and construction
ISO 19901-7 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Specific requirements for offshore structures – Part 7:
Stationkeeping systems for floating offshore structures and mobile offshore units
ISO 19902 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Fixed steel offshore structures
ISO 19904-1 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Floating offshore structures – Part 1: Monohulls, semi-
submersibles and spars
ISO 21809-3 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – External Coatings for Buried or Submerged Pipelines Used in
Pipeline Transportation Systems – Part 3: Field Joint Coatings
If we analyse the distribution of ISO and IEC standards by technical committees, Figures 16 and 17 show the
technical committees with the greatest number of standards referenced.

Figure 16 Distribution of the ISO TC showing the greatest numbers of standards
TC 67 - Materials, equipment and offshore structures for

155
petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries
TC 35 - Paints and varnishes 87
TC 61 - Plastics 56
TC 28 - Petroleum products and lubricants 50
TC 44 -Welding and allied processes 49
TC 17 - Steel 48
TC 138 - Plastics pipes, fittings and valves for

37
the transport of fluids
TC 193 - Natural gas 34
TC 43 - Acoustics 33
TC 45 - Rubber and rubber products 32
TC 108 - Mechanical vibration, shock and

31
condition monitoring
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
In 2008 the top five TC was: TC67 (110), TC17 (48), TC61 (47), TC43 (35), TC10 (35).

Figure 17 Distribution of the IEC TC showing the greatest numbers of standards
TC65 - Industrial-process measurement,

57
control and automation
TC2 - Rotating machinery 38
TC20 - Electric cables 35
TC77 - Electromagnetic compatibility 31
TC17 - Switchgear and controlgear 30
TC31 - Equipment for explosive atmospheres 29
TC14 - Power transformers 28
TC56 - Dependability 25
TC34 - Lamps and related equipment 21
TC18 - Electrical installations of ships and of mobile and

21
fixed offshore units
TC22 - Power electronic systems and equipment 20
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
In 2008, the top five technical committees were TC77 (49), TC20 (41), TC65 (39), TC17 (31), TC2 (26).
Q2.8a What are the criteria to select the experts who participate and how do you encourage young
engineers?
The experts are mainly chosen for their expertise in the subject and their knowledge of standardization. These
experts are involved in these subjects on a voluntary basis or a competency assessment by managers.
• Professional specialty and experience

• Subject matter experts in the discipline
• Senior engineers and technical authorities
• Chiefs engineers i.e. most competent/experienced person in company
• Skill, experience and subject expertise
• Expertise, profile, experience
• Focus area, on voluntary basis
• Competence assessment by segment technical authority and approval by working group
• Employees recognized as experts in the subject of the standards
• Highly motivated professionals usually subject matter experts or discipline managers
• Competencies on the subject, availability
• The criteria depends on speciality in the subject area and the nomination by their departments
• The department engineering Manager designate the experts in each discipline

• Combination of specialist discipline/cross discipline competence and experience across all
development and operational phases. Preference given to specialists that have experience spanning
operator, engineer and contractor perspectives in multiple regulatory environments
• Managers of the specific discipline/engineering department evaluate experiences and skills of the
experts.
o Being a Technical Authority in the respective discipline
o Sound technical (theoretical and practical) knowledge in the specific technical area
o Knowledge of the working procedures of national, European and international standardization
activity
o Experience in language and technical writing
• Nomination by technical discipline manager
• No specific criteria, usually consider the educational background, the working experience, the
reputation in the domain, and language ability
• Recognized expert, willingness to volunteer, time available to commit, must be business value
• Expert within his/her field
• There is no formal assessment to allow experts to participate. Participation is recognised in annual
performance review process and thus forms part of individual’s competence profile/skill set.
Q2.8b How do you encourage young engineers?
Frequently quoted: Networking, training, recognition, career development.
• Let them take part in the conference of standards working-out or revision

• There are many work programs for young engineers
• Publish new standards to all engineers with a corporate expectation that they will be used
• They become involved as the focal point (coordinate to project team in view of technical matters)
• Through trainings (formal and on job), job assignments and mentoring
• Capacitating, training, mentoring
• Promotion, international projects, communication with foreign technical experts
• Young engineers are recruited to assist the teams
• By indicating them to make courses at Company University
• Self-motivated
• Sharing best practices with their older colleagues
• By involving them in technical meetings on standards development and review
• Competence development: Training and supervision by technical authorities in some cases and
competence certification in others
• Our CEO sees the initiative as an ideal development opportunity for graduates and developing
engineers. Our strategy for bridging the “competency” gap for young engineers is to deploy them as
discipline focal points working collaboratively with our experienced engineers to undertake research,
coordinate stakeholder involvement and participate in development of standards
• Making them aware that standards are repository of the discipline knowledge and starting point to
acquire knowledge
• Young engineers are being trained in their discipline as well as generally. Those trainings include
specific modules on development and use of engineering standards. In daily business, young
engineers are supporting senior engineers in standards development
• This is a challenge, but we try to assign them meaningful projects that utilize these tools
• Participation with an experienced expert and technical development opportunity
• Selection of experts are done with the professional ladder and line organisation
• Through annual performance review. Sustaining professional networks and external recognition are
relevant elements of individual competence profiles.
Q2.9 What is put in place to motivate the experts?
Monetary award was more frequently quoted than in 2008. Other answers lead to the same summary: In
some companies, this activity is part of a normal expert’s work and it is included in its appraisal. When the

activity depends on the willingness to volunteer, the motivation is the opportunity to meet their peers and
recognition in the discipline.
• Motivation by the praise mainly, at the same time, visible awards also important to encourage these
people, but lack of the good practices
• Performance commitments, deadlines, and follow-up
• Part of their KPIs for the year. Achieving KPIs enhances yearly bonus potential
• Company recognition, career development opportunities, monetary awards, etc.
• Bonus and recognition
• Communication with other technical experts
• Technical pride to be involved
• Usually part of their role profile - most are self-motivated by being able to see the results of their work.
Senior management continually reinforces company’s belief in the importance of having access to
good practice
• They receive points to their career improvement
• Involvement in meetings, workshops and training
• Participation in international congresses and activities
• We are placing considerable emphasis on communication; the association of the standards
development initiative with individual engineer development and networking opportunities and the
direct association of specific development tasks with team and individual performance agreements
• Making them aware of the importance of the knowledge for the project and their benefits.
• Standardization is included like part of appraisal talk and is part of the annual bonus
• Various recognition awards and admittance into expert programs
• Industry recognition and networking
• Motivate by financial
• Different experts may need difference in motivation
• Through the budget & planning cycle, resources (time and budget) are made available to the experts
to allow them to participate in external standardisation in their field of expertise. The participation has
value to the individual expert as it helps to maintain his/her network, including the attendance of face-
to-face meetings outside the normal working place.
Q2.10 How do you promote the use of standards and standardization work within your own company?
The use of standards and standardization are promoted through training, communication, management
commitment, procedures or guidelines, project reviews.
• Training, supervision, inspection.

• To use standards is a part of a technical and/or engineering job
• Management backing, review of projects and what standards used
• Currently conducting “Roadshows”. Includes Corporate office and Assets
• Basically saving the company for time and money, and simplifies our ways of working. Applying best
industry experiences and knowledge into our activities. Learning from other E&P companies.
Management commitment, policies/standards/procedure, peer reviews.
• Awareness sessions, trainings, active involvement with standard development committees (local,
regional and international) and recognition.
• Forums, workshops, diffusion, web, internet pages
• Codes and Standards Policy, teleconferences, presentations and intranet papers
• Information/roll-out and it is mandatory for our standards and further to use the referenced
international standards
• Through procedures and management commitment
• By courses about standardization organized by Company University; by using them in the basic
designs developed by Company
• Use of standards is promoted through a guideline for use of globally relevant standards which include
a comprehensive list of E&P international standards (ISO/IEC) and other globally relevant standards

(ASME, API, NFPA, BS, etc.). This guideline allows projects and teams to assess standards on a
specific topic and decide which are the appropriate.
• Other approaches to promote use of standards are through quality reviews of company projects and
through internal engineering forums
• Information / promotion on the benefits of standardization activities. Tools for helping specialists to
use standards in their company specifications
• By encouraging all departments and experts for standards review and development meetings and
workshops
• A program to promote technical practices is being developed by the current practicing engineers and
supervised by the corresponding technical authorities
• With regards to Drilling and Completions, Global Practices are not an option but a requirement and
implementation is a condition for employment
• The current initiative has CEO sponsorship and there is a broad strategy for communication top down
through presentations, forums, team meetings, lunch and learns etc. and through extensive use of
internal web based collaboration tools
• The feedback log provided through the collaboration website also provides an ideal avenue for
gaining user feedback both in terms of technical content and to standards management and
improvement strategies
• Dedicated intranet web site, courses and workshops, technical audits/assessments in operating
districts. In addition working groups of standardization work closely with project teams
• For promoting the use of standards and standardization work the Company is using:
o Intranet dedicated web pages, displays, company-magazine,
o Organizing dedicated events and training in the field of standardization (the use of standards,
the process of standard adoption, etc.)
o Promotion activities during Network community meetings,
o Part of the special events like company-symposiums
o Online-platform where the standards are officially uploaded
• Corporate and Upstream Compliance Standards regarding the use of our standards, technical
discipline communities/networks, global standards advisors network, business unit and company
conference presentations, etc.
• Expectations for use are defined as part of the company’s project management, safety, and
operations integrity management systems
• Through the professional ladder and together with the line organisation
• Promotion is done:
o Through frequent communication: the importance of standardisation and the use of standards
are highlighted in many presentations including those from the most senior levels in the
company. It is part of company’s culture.
o Through our company procedures: in our opportunity realisation process, projects are
requested to submit their proposed engineering and design standards in the technical scope
definition.
o Through our Contracting and Procurement strategy
Q2.11 Where does your company think improvements are necessary in International Standards work?
Improvements frequently quoted:

• more attention to national adoption
• time needed to revise/issue standards, promotion of standardization
• API ISO joint working.
• Improved development times

• Compromise and agreement with US standards
• Improvements are necessary in international standards work. It is required to improve the participation
of experts and companies. Take more attention to national adoption.
• Within asset integrity and process safety. Further standardization within facility engineering. To
improve the speed of which the standards are review and updated
• Deep water
• To take more attention to a national adoption of International standards:

o reducing a number of normative references to those that are absolutely required as an
integral part of the standard
o developing comprehensive multilingual glossaries
o official translation of standards into the main ISO languages
o adopting performance approach in standards development
o developing standards for E&P technologies, including HSEQ
• Keep them fit for purpose and operational (focus on the important issues)
• Currently biggest area of improvement is in API ISO joint working
• In downstream area
• Improvements:
o Supporting the IOGP initiative on the value of standards
o Creating a better Catalogue with all E&P globally relevant standards segmented by disciplines
and specific subjects
o Free access for all International standards
• Reducing delays & improving the development of standards in only ONE standardization organization
(ISO).
• International standards work should focus on the local needs on worldwide basis by being more close
to companies needs and experts involvement. This reflects on including the actual needs of oil and
gas industry
• For Drilling and Completions, it would be interesting to have all operators adhere to one set of
standards to avoid the variance among service providers, in the standards to which they adhere
• The primary concerns with use of international/national standards relate to:
o Inconsistency in style and the mix of scope and guidance with technical content. Focus
needs to be given to ensuring standard content “is presented as clear, auditable statements
of observable and/or measureable requirements and acceptance criteria”
o Development cycle and the resultant lag in reflecting technology advances and regulatory
requirements
• To be improved/reduced the time needed to revise/issue standards and to include operating
standards/procedures
• The International Standards work requires some improvements so as to ensure an easier adoption
process across the globe. Progress needs to be made on harmonising standardization work.
• The process and timeframe for adopting an ISO standard into a European Standard that is complaint
(does not come into conflict) with relevant European legislation provisions needs to be shortened.
• Main factor in International Standards work actually lies out of its boundaries: Generally, education at
universities and other institutes uses standards only rarely. Not only the awareness / knowledge of
different standard-regimes, but also some basic experience in applying those standards should be a
cornerstone of today’s university education. Companies expect graduates to know, but those are
never being taught
• Consensus on North American versus International standards
• Minimize redundant international standards
• Standards within Cold climate (ISO TC67 SC8) is an area of interests since only few standards are
available
• System standards that drive towards standardized solutions
• Improvements:
o Improved cooperation between ISO and API (as proposed by the API/IOGP joint task force)
o Clarification of impacts of export controls and trade sanctions on international standardisation
activities
These responses need to be analysed further to provide relevant input for standards efforts.
Q2.12 What are the benefits of International Standards work as seen by your company?
Benefits frequently quoted are the same as in the 2008 report:

• cost reduction
• reconciliation of technical differences
• HSE
• minimize the volume of company specifications.

• Good for the technical sharing, the consistent working level in global.
• Minimising the amount of company standards
o Cost reduction
o Unified technical specifications
o Better communication between companies and suppliers
o Following international standards could rise company efficiency
• Simplicity in working in locations with standards different than U.S
• Standardisation of engineering practice
• To be guide and learn from the industry experience, and also to provide more uniform requirements to
the contractors we work with: safer, more efficient and cheaper
• Promotion of safety, health, security, quality, reliability, compatibility; technology transfer; ease of trade,
protection of consumers and the environment
• Actualization, technological improvement
• Cost reduction (simplify design and procurement, interchangeability of equipment, etc.), enhance
technical integrity (HSEQ, maximum availability, etc.), establish a common technology base (sharing
best practice) and support legislation
• Makes it easier for us and the industry to operate globally
• Ability to use International standards rather than writing own practices. Guidance to regulators
• It is easier to make suppliers follow Company requirements
• E&P shares Value of standards IOGP Report 440, as it is stated in the E&P policy on standards:
o Responsible performance oriented to people safety and environment protection
o Quality technical management
o Compatibility and efficiency that generate cost and time optimization
o Usage of the best knowledge and experience available within the upstream industry
o Facilitation of partnership and international operations in a global market
Also E&P is oriented to minimise company specifications
• Share best practices / promotion of our specifications and our knowledge
• This will minimise developing company specifications, involvement of international contractors easily in
local company projects and also including the international experience and latest technology in the
company standards work
• They gather industry best practices and criteria approved by the disciplines’ experts. They also provide
standardization of design, material and equipment acquisition, construction and operation of facilities
They ensure that the company operates with the same operating standards, regardless of the area of
operation. This provides an operating management system which is dependable and safe and where
performance, efficiency and safety, can be measured on a level playing field
• The ability to leverage from shared industry (best) practices aligned with regulatory frame works which
provides a consistent framework for operators to apply both internally and when engaging contractors
and suppliers
• Improvement of:
o Technical integrity
o Establish a common technology base within JV with other Oil Companies
o Support legislations
o Cost optimization
• Benefits:
o Obtaining up-to-date information in the areas of interest for the company
o Influencing standard drafts so that they best suit the interests of the company
o Planning the required actions for implementing new or revised standards in the current
business activity
o Establishing contacts with other stakeholders, experts and regulators at both national and
international levels
o Allowing easier Contractor Management by creating a common understanding of
requirements
o Reflecting a huge amount of learning’s the industry made over the past decades
o Ensuring that business operations are as efficient as possible
o Increasing productivity and helping to access new markets
o International Standards are leading to cost savings, increase market share and bring
environmental benefits
o Reducing needs for company specifications

o Making it easier to approach global vendor markets
• Reduces capex and opex, we have less cost to maintain our standards, suppliers can and will provide
solutions that are compliant with these standards which should reduce build costs, testing and start-up
times
• Improved safety and environmental performance globally
• Global standards used locally worldwide. Effective procurement in project development. Still
compliance to local laws and regulations is a prerequisite, and often challenge the use of ISO-
standards
• Benefits:
o License to operate: consistency around the globe
o HSSE: reduction of complexity, normative elements of standards
o Costs: economy of scale (more of the same, faster)
• Continuous improvement: essential part of feed-back system that captures lessons learnt
Q2.13 In which subject/category does your company see the most benefit of International Standards
work?
Two subjects more frequently quoted: Drilling and wells, areas with extreme environments (subsea, Arctic,
HP/HT, etc.) For 2008, main subjects were HSE and procurement items.
• Offshore drilling, and other upstream industries

• Engineering design
o Quality and HSE
o Materials and grade
o Equipment design
o Manufacturing
o Well completion
o Surface equipment design
• Electrical
• Our focus is mainly on ISO TC67 and see the benefits “across the board” rather on one particular
discipline
• All discipline
• Operations Integrity, Safety, Quality, Health & Environment & Security
• Pipelines, process (design and operation) deep water drilling
• Harmonisation of company and national standards (legislation) based on International standards
• Oil/gas Facilities design and fabrication
• Offshore structures
• Disciplines:
1. HSE
2. Offshore structures
3. Drilling and wells
4. Subsea
5. Process and design
6. Maintenance and Inspection
7. Marine operations
8. Pipelines
9. Civil engineering, civil works
10. Material including corrosion
11. Mechanical including rotating equipment, tanks and vessels
12. Piping & Valves
13. Instrumentation
14. Welding
15. Electrical
16. HVAC
17. Geology / Reservoir

18. Telecommunications
• Drilling & Completion, Production
• The subjects related to HSE (onshore and offshore) and Asset Integrity looks very interesting.
• All
• We believe the strategy of aligning with international standards is applicable to all disciplines
particularly at the specification level of standards
• Maximum benefit is realised when a discipline establishes a full, integrated suite of standards such as
the ISO 19900 suite for Offshore Structures and the full IEC suite of standards
• Disciplines:
o Drilling and wells
o Subsea
o Artic
• Drilling and Wells, Mechanical, Pipelines, Piping, Electrical
• Electrical, Subsea, Offshore Structures
• Benefit varies by discipline
• We do not distinguish between disciplines.
• In areas of significant risks and opportunities (both technical and non-technical).
o Management systems, Unconventional oil & gas (i.e. onshore equipment, including wells &
drilling)
o Areas with extreme environments: arctic, deepwater, HP/HT, sour service putting strong
demands on integrity of facilities (offshore, materials, arctic)
o Contracting and procurement of equipment and packages/systems where international
standards for the basis for frame agreements (components, line pipe, wells)
o Disciplines that show significant technological advances that need to find their way into the
standards (this aligns with areas associated with extreme environments)
Q2.14 In which subject/discipline does your company think more standards work is necessary?
Frequently quoted: Maintenance & inspection, subsea and deep water drilling.
There is currently no focus by the oil and gas industry on international standards for maintenance & inspection.
The number of specifications is high, so this may be another area for improvement.
• Deep water drilling and production technical specification, seabed facilities engineering, and safety
and environment protection concerns
• More standards is necessary at new technologies
• Electrical
• Maintenance & Inspection related … including Alarm Management and Isolations
• Security
• Deep water drilling
• Terminology
• Offshore structures
• Geology / Reservoir, Subsea, Maintenance and Inspection, Process and design
• Inspection and maintenance activities
• Offshore safety (Systems and equipment)
• Environment related subjects, Control of Work, HSE
• Integration of ISO/API across mechanical standards
• Arctic and subsea, rigs offshore, well control practices
• Process safety, Offshore, Unconventional Gas, Civil engineering
• Subsea
• Standards that describes standardized solutions
• Post industry events (Montara, Macondo), the work on standards for management systems for the oil
and gas sector should accelerate

Part 3 – Document management
Q3.1 How many people are dedicated to the management of the company specifications and the
external standardization activities?
The majority of thee participating companies responded to this question with responses showing great
variation in this effort. An interesting observation is that many more people are involved in the management
and development of company specifications than in external standardization activities.
Figure 22 People (equivalent man-year) dedicated to management
of company specifications of external standardization activities

minimum average maximum minimum average maximum
100 40
80 85
30
60
20
40
10
22 8
10
20 14
5 3
1 1
0,03 0 0,1
0 0
management experts management experts
There is about four times more manpower put into the work done on internal specifications compared with
external standards by the respondents.
This topic of was discussed at an IOGP workshop in July 2014 with a suggestion that this split should be more
equal, e.g. 50/50. This means much more time should be spent on external standardization activities than
presently is the case.
Q3.3 Can you provide a description of the document management process showing the main
contributors and the successive validation stages?
The majority of the participants have a company specification management process which was described in
brief. Typically, the companies have set up a process for:
1. document requested
2. management approval
3. owner assigned/document created
4. review from Subject Matter Experts
5. changes as required
6. management approval
7. publication.
Q3.4 Is there a quality control set up concerning the process of technical standardization?
Nearly all of the companies have a quality control on the process. For 37% (7 of 19) of these companies, this
process is certified.
In 2008, the figures were respectively 75% (quality control) and 42% (certified)

Q3.6 Are internal KPIs set up?
About half of the participants have a KPI system for the process of technical standardization, slightly more in
the 2008 survey. There was no direct relation between having a quality control on this process and having
KPIs.
KPIs often quote the number of documents issued versus planned, and the duration for deviation treatment.

Part 4 – Concluding reflections
The Executive Summary is found at the front of this report.
In view of the very important technical resource that company specifications represent for their respective oil
and gas companies and the large amount of company specifications still in force, which demand considerable
resources from each company to develop and maintain, we should perhaps reflect on this matter.
What makes some of the operating companies (with pretty much the same tasks of exploration and
development of oil and gas fields) develop the large libraries of specifications we have seen in this survey
whereas other companies have far fewer? There is a clear tendency that large companies have (many) more
specifications than small companies, whilst they have the same tasks. So in principle they should have the
same number of specifications.
One simple answer may simply be that companies are different, with different operating strategies. Another
answer could be that this may be related to available number of staff or engineering resources.
Another reason could be that when consensus on a technical issue during an external standard development
is not possible, the solution is sometimes found by adding: “…or specified by the company” or “…by
agreement”. These terms are detrimental for standardization because the standard then requires the
companies to make their own choices or specifications. The survey has also revealed that nearly all
companies have a steering committee, so leadership is in place but apparently is not too much concerned
with this particular matter.
Who decides the level of details of what is included in the company specifications? Many factors are believed
to influence this issue such as past failures, engineering experience, management strategy, knowledge of
available standards, and in-house engineering resources available. Typically it is the company’s own
engineers that develop the specifications with a chief engineer or a management structure for their approval.
From the past, we know that top management of some companies from time to time have taken steps to
reduce the numbers of or, on the contrary, develop more and strengthen the relevance of specifications or
similar actions of considerable significance. This survey also showed great variance to which level the
company specifications are voluntary or mandatory for company projects or company operations.
Partners in a field development project normally accept the responsible operator’s specifications as governing
for a specific field development. An interesting question in line with this fact would be: Would the partner
companies be happy to have the operator’s specifications as their own specifications?
Another question is if Company A’s engineers worked for Company B and vice versa, would then Company B
after some time get Company A’s specifications and vice versa? This is not unlikely! This implies that if
Company A can operate with Company B’s specifications, would they not be able to operate with a set of
external standards if they were available? This is not unlikely!
Therefore it appears that more of the resources that is spent today on development and maintenance of
company specifications could better be shared with others in development of international standards. This
may be particularly relevant in areas where there are no or limited international standards work on-going. With
the possibility of different product specification levels and for regional variations in international standards,
there is no reason why this could not work. With a company specification that largely made references to
external standards, projects would have a clear basis on which to build their needs and more standardization
would be achieved.
The survey also shows that the major companies are carrying a heavy burden in the international standards
development work. Actions should be taken to involve more operating companies that are not present today
as this survey also shows that all companies that make good use of external standards significantly benefit
from their existence.

IOGP’s position on development and use of international standards (IOGP Report 381) may well have
influenced the reduction in company specifications seen from this survey and increased the choice of
reference standards in the international direction. This position is still relevant as there is clearly more work to
do in the area of reducing the number and volume of company specifications and developing of more external
standards to achieve the full goals of the position.

Appendix A – Organizations developing the referenced standards
Part 1 Organizations with 10 or more references
1. ISO - International Organization for Standardization

2. IEC – International Electrotechnical Commission
3. AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
4. ABNT – Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas
5. ACI - American Concrete Institute
6. AFNOR - Organization of the French standardization system
7. AGA - American Gas Association
8. ANSI - American National Standard Institute
9. APHA - American Public Health Association
10. API - American Petroleum Institute
11. AS – Standards Australia
12. ASHRAE - American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers
13. ASME - American Society of Mechanical Engineers
14. ASRO - Romanian Standards Association
15. ASTM - American Society for Testing and Materials
16. Austroad - Association of Australian and New Zealand Road Transport and Traffic Authorities
17. AWS - American Welding Society
18. BS – British Standards
19. CAP - UK Civil Aviation Authority
20. CEN/CENELEC - European Committee for Standardization
21. CNIS - China National Institute of Standardization
22. CSA - Canadian Standards Association
23. CTI - Cooling Technology Institute
24. DIN - Deutsches Institut für Normung
25. DNV – Det Norske Veritas
26. EEMUA - Engineering Equipment & Materials Users' Association
27. EI (IP) – Energy Institute
28. ETSI - European Telecommunications Standards Institute
29. IALA - International Association of Lighthouse Authorities
30. ICAO - International Civil Aviation Organization
31. IEEE - Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers
32. IETF - Internet Engineering Task Force
33. IMCA - International Marine Contractors Association
34. IMO - International Maritime Organization
35. IOGP – International Association of Oil & Gas Producers
36. IPIECA - International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association
37. ISA - International Society of Automation
38. ITU – International Telecommunication Union
39. MSS - Manufacturers Standardization Society
40. NACE - National Association of Corrosion Engineers
41. NEMA - National Electrical Manufacturers Association
42. NFPA - National Fire Protection Association
43. NORSOK – Norwegian Oil & Gas Industry Standard
44. OCIMF - Oil Companies International Marine Forum
45. OKOOA - Oil & Gas UK
46. SAE - SAE International
47. SSPC - Society for Protective Coatings
48. TIA - Telecommunications Industry Association
49. UL - Underwriters Laboratories

Part 2 Organizations with fewer than 10 references
50. Acoustical Society of America

51. AD Merkblätter
52. Aerospace Industries Association of America Inc.
53. Air Movement and Control Association International
54. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
55. Aluminium Plate-Fin Heat Exchanger Manufacturer's Association
56. American Bearing Manufacturers Association
57. American Bureau of Shipping
58. American Gear Manufacturers Association
59. American Institute of Chemical Engineers
60. American Institute of Steel Construction
61. American Society For Nondestructive Testing
62. American Society of Civil Engineers
63. American Society of Sanitary Engineering
64. American Water Works Association
65. Anti Friction Bearing Manufacturers Association
66. Associação Brasileira de Ensaios Não Destrutivos e Inspeção
67. Association of Diving Contractors International
68. Association of Electrical Equipment and Medical Imaging Manufacturers
69. Association of Offshore Diving Contractors
70. Australian Building Codes Board
71. Australian Nacional Pollutant Inventory
72. AviateQ International
73. BREPress
74. BSI - Occupational Health & Safety Advisory Services
75. Bureau International des Poids et Mesures
76. Bureau of Indian Standards
77. Bureau Veritas
78. Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
79. CEN
80. Chemical Industries Association
81. Civil Aviation Authorities (of certain European countries)
82. Conveyor Equipment Manufacturers Association
83. Crane Manufacturers Association of America
84. DNV Germanisher Lloyds-Noble Denton
85. El Instituto de Contabilidad y Auditoría de Cuentas
86. Electrostatic Discharge Association
87. ETSI Technical Report
88. European Computer Manufacturers Association
89. European Environment Agency
90. European Industrial Gases Association
91. Expansion Joint Manufacturers Association
92. Federal Aviation Administration
93. Fire and Blast Information Group
94. Fluid Controls Institute
95. Fundação Brasileira de Tecnologia da Soldagem
96. Gas Processors Association
97. Heat Exchange Institute - HEI
98. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
99. HVCA has changed its name to Building & Engineering Services Association
100. ICC Evaluation Service
101. Illuminating Engineering Society of North America
102. Institution of Gas Engineers & Managers
103. Insulated Cable Engineers Association
104. International Association of Classification Societies
105. International Association of Drilling Contractors (IADC)
106. International Association of Geophysical Contractors
107. International Building Code

108. International Chamber of Shipping
109. International Commission for Illumination
110. International Commission on Radiological Protection
111. International Committee of Industrial Chimneys
112. International Council on Large Electric Systems
113. International Council on Large Electric Systems
114. International Federation for Structural Concrete
115. International Finance Corporation
116. International Institute of Ammonia Refrigeration
117. International Institute of Welding
118. International Labour Organization
119. International Plant Protection Convention
120. Japanese Industrial Standard
121. Joint Nature Conservation Committee
122. Lloyd's Register
123. NAMUR Interessengemeinschaft Automatisierungstechnik der Prozessindustrie
124. National Aerospace Standard
125. National Board Inspection Code
126. National Building Code of Canada
127. National Institute of Building Sciences (US)
128. National Institute of Standards and Technology
129. National Society of Compliance Professionals
130. NEN (Dutch Standards Organization)
131. Netherlands Standardization Institute
132. New Zealand Standard
133. Noble Denton
134. North American Electric Reliability Corporation
135. Norwegian Electrotechnical Committee NEK
136. Norwegian Institute of Public Health
137. Norwegian Oil & Gas
138. Norwegian Standard
139. NSF International.
140. Occupational Safety & Health Administration
141. Offshore Contractors’ Association
142. Oil Companies Materials Association
143. Oil Industry Advisory Committee - UK HSE
144. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development
145. Pipe Fabrication Institute (PFI)
146. Plastic Pipe Institute
147. Process Industry Practices
148. RAL German Institute for Quality Assurance and Marking
149. Regional Association of oil, gas and biofuels sector companies in Latin America and the Caribbean
150. Romanian Standards Association
151. Russian Standard
152. Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors' National Association
153. Society for Underwater Technology
154. Society of Fire Protection Engineers
155. Society of International Gas Tanker and Terminal Operators
156. Society of Naval Architects & Marine Engineers
157. Steel Construction Institute UK
158. Technischer Überwachungs-Verein
159. Texas Administrative Code
160. TH Hill
161. The Association of German Engineers
162. The International Air Transport Association
163. The International Association for the Properties of Water and Steam
164. The International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)
165. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
166. Tubular Exchanger Manufacturers Association
167. Turkish standard

168. UK Naval Engineering Standard
169. UK Step Change in Safety
170. UKLPG
171. United Kingdom Chemical Industries Association
172. United Kingdom Maritime and Coastguard Agency
173. United Nations
174. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
175. US Army Corps of Engineers
176. US Environmental Protection Agency
177. US Military Specifications and Standards
178. VGB PowerTech
179. Welding Research Council
180. Welding Technology Institute of Australia
181. World Association for Waterborne Transport Infrastructure
182. World Health Organization
183. World Meteorological Organization

www.iogp.org
Registered Office
Level 5 T +44 (0)20 3763 9700
209–215 Blackfriars Rd F +44 (0)20 3763 9701
London SE1 8NL reception@iogp.org
United Kingdom
Brussels Office
Bd du Souverain,165 T +32 (0)2 566 9150
4th Floor F +32 (0)2 566 9159
B-1160 Brussels
Belgium
The IOGP Standards

Committee initiated a
benchmark survey in
2013 to assess changes in
specification and standards
development strategies, use
of standards and trends in the
key benchmarking criteria.
This IOGP public report
provides a summary of the
latest benchmarking results.

Benchmarking On Standards and Technical Specifications

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Benchmarking On Standards and Technical Specifications

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

REPORT JUNE

Benchmarking on standards and

Photography used with permission courtesy of ©itjoestheim/

These Terms and Conditions shall be governed by and construed in accordance

Benchmarking on standards and

VERSION DATE AMENDMENTS

1.0 June 2015 First release

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 2

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 3

Figure 1 Base region of the companies taken into account

Part 1 – Company specifications

Figure 3 Segments considered for the answer by the companies

Upstream and 15%

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 4

We can generally find four main categories:

• technical specifications, technical standards (including drawings and forms)

Q1.8 Which type of documents specified are mandatory?

• Management structure in business units; and/or

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 5

Number of documents average number of pages

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 6

Figure 5 Average number of documents by discipline

Average number by discipline

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 7

Figure 6 – Average number of documents by discipline – comparisons with 2008 data

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 8

2013 average 2008 average

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 9

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 10

Most of them rely on the judgement of the document custodian through:

Verbatim answers provided by the respondents:

• A “User Feedback” system is in place

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 11

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 12

Figure 9 Proportion of company specifications “based on”

international standard other external standard

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 13

Figure 11a Number of standards referenced sorted by organization – 2013

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 14

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 15

Referenced by seven companies

Referenced by six companies

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 16

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 17

TC 67 - Materials, equipment and offshore structures for

TC 35 - Paints and varnishes 87

TC 28 - Petroleum products and lubricants 50

TC 44 -Welding and allied processes 49

TC 138 - Plastics pipes, fittings and valves for

TC 193 - Natural gas 34

TC 45 - Rubber and rubber products 32

TC 108 - Mechanical vibration, shock and

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Report 500, Benchmarking on standards and technical specifications – page 18

TC65 - Industrial-process measurement,

TC2 - Rotating machinery 38

TC20 - Electric cables 35

TC77 - Electromagnetic compatibility 31

TC17 - Switchgear and controlgear 30

TC31 - Equipment for explosive atmospheres 29

TC14 - Power transformers 28

TC34 - Lamps and related equipment 21

TC18 - Electrical installations of ships and of mobile and