The Value of Information and success factors for a NDR
Th e Va lu e of I n for m a t ion
a n d su cce ss fa ct or s for a N D R
Source :
ht t p: / / www.agiweb.org/ ngdrs/ ndr5/ post conference/ present
at ions/ Tonst ad.ppt
Kj e t il Ton st a d
Ex plor a t ion M a n a ge r M iddle Ea st
St a t oil ASA
2
Cont ent
• Short present at ion of St at oil
• The value of I nform at ion
• I nform at ion “ front end loading”
• The Whale – “ from am bit ion t o act ion”
• The Diskos proj ect – a sim ple “ pay back” evaluat ion
• Nat ional Dat a St ores - im port ant success fact ors
1
3
This is St at oil
• A m aj or oil producer:
one m illion barrels per day
• World’s t hird largest crude oil seller
• Market s t wo- t hirds of all Norwegian gas t o
European cust om ers
• Largest ret ailer of oil product s in Scandinavia
• A group wit h clear growt h t arget s
4
Operat ions in 28 count ries
2
5
Product ion of oil and gas is rising
1 000 boe/d
6% annual
prodn growth
1600
1 350
1400
1200
1000
Oil and gas product ion
( 2003: 1 080 000 boe per day)
966
1 003
1 007
1 074
1 080
I NT 8.2%
1 120
NCS 91.8%
800
600
I ncrease in product ion
1 350 000 boe per day in 2007
400
I NT 25%
200
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Oil
2004
target
2007
target
NCS 75%
Gas
Th e va lu e of I n for m a t ion
What is t he value of dat a and inform at ion?
3
7
Quest ions and answers
• Typical quest ion
– Shall I acquire a 2D or 3D survey in t his area?
– Should I shoot seism ic or j ust drill anot her well?
– Shall I acquire a core in t his well?
– Should I by anot her st udy?
• Typical answers from your Manager
– What is t he cost
– What is it wort h
– What is t he ret urn on t his invest m ent ?
8
Value of I nform at ion
• I t ’s t he difference bet ween t he proj ect value wit h t he inform at ion and
t he proj ect value wit hout t he inform at ion, m inus t he cost of acquiring
t he inform at ion
• These im plies t hat :
– t here m ust be alt ernat ive out com e, ot herwise no inform at ion could
add value, which again is t he sam e as t o say t hat t here m ust be
uncert aint y
• I f t here is uncert aint y
– t here m ust be choices, if t here is no choices – t here is no decisions
t o be m ade, and inform at ion is in fact wort hless
4
9
I nform at ion
• According t o t he I nform at ion Theory:
– I nform at ion is defined as - “ reduct ion of uncert aint y”
Dat a and I nform at ion will reduce uncert aint y in proj ect s…!
9 A NDR should provide Dat a and I nform at ion t o Governm ent and
I ndust ry and t hereby cont ribut e t o proj ect risk m it igat ion and
hence increased value creat ion!
10
IT EFFORT COMPARED WITH SUCCESS
700
But , will t here be a difference in
overall perform ance in a count ry
wit h m uch relevant Dat a and
I nform at ion available t o t he
indust ry com pared t o a count ry
wit hout ?
600
Reserves Addition
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150 Staff
Support
(Data Management and TAs)
200
250
300
Paras 1999
5
11
Breakthrough: The Information Orientation of an
organization is linked to performance
I nform at ion
Orient at ion
Business
Perform ance
Pe ople
I n for m a t ion
Te ch n ology
Pr oa ct ive n e ss
Se nsin g
M a n a ge m e n t
Sha r ing
Pr oce ssing
I n nova t ion
Tr a nspa r e ncy
M a int a ining
Con t r ol
Or ga n iz ing
Busin e ss
Pr oce ss
Ope r a t ions
For m a lit y
{
• M a r k e t Sh a r e Gr ow t h
• Fin a n cia l Pe r for m a n ce
• Le ve l of I n nova t ion
• Su pe r ior Com pa n y
Re pu t a t ion
Colle ct ing
I nt e gr it y
Source: Dr. Donald A. Marchand
12
6
13
I nform at ion “ Front end loading” : Cost
Gr a h a m Tile y Sh e ll Ex plor a t ion
14
The Whale – “ from am bit ion t o act ion”
7
15
I nform at ion “ Front end loading” : Va lu e
Gr a h a m Tile y Sh e ll Ex plor a t ion
16
Uncert aint y – Choice – I nform at ion - value
• I t is im port ant t o focus invest m ent s t owards inform at ion and
inform at ion syst em s t hat support decisions at t he value generat ion
“ front - end” of t he proj ect life cycle
• Governm ent s should m ake all relevant Dat a and I nform at ion available
as front - end loading t o proj ect s t o m it igat e risk and t hereby m axim ise
revenues from all invest m ent s
• Dat a and I nform at ion not in use has absolut e no value t o nobody..!
• A NDR will cont ribut e t o risk m it igat ion and value creat ion by m aking
im port ant Dat a and I nform at ion available t o governm ent and indust ry
8
Th e N or w e gia n N D R
A success st ory
18
The Diskos proj ect
M a in obj e ct ive s a s t h e y w h e r e for m u la t e d in 1 9 9 3 !
" e st a blish a j oin t , ce n t r a l da t a ba se for im por t a n t
qu a lit y a ssu r e d ge o- da t a a n d m a k e t h e m e a sily
a cce ssible for t h e u se r "
Re qu ir em e n t spe cifica t ion for Cen t r a l Ge o- D a t a St or a ge
N PD 1 1 t h Ju n e 1 9 9 3
9
19
The Norwegian NDR Challenge
Bu ild a br idge be t w e e n t h e oil com pa n ie s n e e d t o
st or e , m a n a ge a n d a cce ss r a w da t a , a n d t h e
gove r n m e n t n e e d t o bu ild a n d m a in t a in a n a t ion a l
da t a ba se
20
Post st ack seism ic wit hout NDR
Ta p
es
Operator
Partners
Processing contractor
Authorities
Archive
10
21
Post st ack seism ic wit h NDR
Processing contractor
Tapes
NDR
Ne
tw
o rk
Operator
Partners
Authorities
22
Evaluat ion of t he DI SKOS
proj ect , an exam ple
Process
Time used
in 1999
Logging in
2 min
Selecting data
5-10 min
Processing a
request
(1000km/3D
survey)
Network transfer
(13-14 Gb/hour)
10 min/2hours
Total
1 day
Time used
in1992
10 min/5hours
(8bit data)
10 days
" I n short t im e ( approxim at ely 5 m in) was t he dat a overview est ablished in t he
act ual area ( Nordland I I ) " . Fra: Vurdering av Pet roBank desem ber 96 av rådgiver Geir St øle, St at oil
11
23
Data downloaded from the Diskos
data base from 1999 to mid 2003
2500
2000
1500
Giga
byte
1000
500
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
Accumulated download 1999 – 2003 = 57 Terabyte
Total data volume in database = 60 Terabyte
2003
Source: PetroData a/s
24
Evaluat ion of t he DI SKOS proj ect
Benefits
zTangible benefit s
–reduced act ivit y in G&G ar chive
–dat a ver sion cont rol
–reduced st orage cost
–refor m at t ing
–int er nal and ex t ernal dist r ibut ion
–work st at ion for m at t ing
–reduced SW and HW inv est m ent
–reduced disk space needs
–dat a select ion and overview
–spec dat a select ion
–effect ive & safe dat a t rade
–NPD updat es ( cult ur e dat a)
zI nt angible benefit s
–fast er proj ect cycle t im e
–m ore dat a accessible
–qualit y assur ed dat a ( im pr oved
user confidence)
–m ore effect iv e dat a flow from
cont ract or s t o St at oil
–use of st andar ds
–easy r eport ing t o NPD
–easy r eport ing of dat a in license
" The maps are not beeing more correct
if you put them into a screen"
e
lL
i
A
rsa
e
sn
iA
m
n
e
R
u
o
n
o
a
L
e
lè
ri-v
C
a
h
sM
zé
n
tiS
a
o
L
sa
viB
u
e
n
C
e
a
M
te
z
rE
vxu
e
e
-lB
ra
D
cu
o
-rsu
lC
n
â
h
M
a
e
iP
ra
s
e
ls
iV
ra
ycN
n
a
e
n
o
çA
l
S
tru
o
b
sa
g
n
e
cu
itS
a
-B
r
rE
vy
u
lM
n
e
rC
a
h
tse
m
re
iQ
p
u
n
la
iE
p
la
vL
rT
se
yo
m
u
C
a
th
n
o
m
ca
lC
o
é
sn
lO
a
r
e
L
M
sn
a
lu
o
V
se
se
n
R
re
A
xu
fro
lB
e
t
se
V
n
a
o
jn
i
D
rA
e
g
n
s
so
iB
l
n
o
ça
B
se
tN
n
a
se
re
N
vs
ru
o
T
s
B
ru
o
se
g
te
riP
o
s
tC
â
h
ru
a
e
xo
a
L
-e
h
ru
R
co
sY
n
e
-sn
o
lL
riS
u
a
n
o
M
câ
e
-sn
o
lL
riS
u
a
o
it
rN
B
ru
o
g
e
la
L
h
R
co
G
ré
u
te
ycA
e
n
ê
u
lA
m
o
g
n
e
n
e
itS
a
É
m
se
g
i
L
o
n
o
yL
m
C
a
h
ré
b
y
e
lm
rC
tn
o
-F
d
a
e
lu
T
e
lG
rb
o
n
e
L
P
yu
g
xu
e
iP
ré
a
lc
iA
ru
e
cn
lV
a
B
ro
xu
a
e
d
ro
C
h
a
s
M
e
d
n
G
p
a
vsa
iP
r
g
e
i
D
n
ze
R
d
o
A
n
e
g
M
tn
o
-e
d
ra
s
m
se
i
N
M
tn
o
a
b
u
g
n
o
iA
v
b
l
iA
h
A
cu
P
u
a
o
e
u
slT
ce
i
N
e
ilrM
tn
o
p
e
liM
ra
s
o
u
lT
n
ra
T
se
b
e
n
o
sC
ra
c
a
tiB
s
xo
iF
g
n
a
iP
re
p
o
ia
cA
j
Stortingsmann Bastesen på
Geodesi og Hydrografidagene
20.11.98
12
25
Evaluat ion of t he DI SKOS proj ect
The tangible benefits exeeds the cost!
Cost ac
Benerfit ac
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
2,1
4,8
9,1
13,9
19,2
26,2
33,5
0
0
0
5
15
42,4
69,8
Cost reduction in 1999
26
1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 t h levels of effect s
• 1 st level: I nform at ion “ front - end loading” and risk m it igat ion
• 2 nd level: Report ing and dist ribut ion of dat a t o governm ent and
part ners
• 3 rd level: More efficient St at oil int ernal access t o dat a
• 4 t h level: Overall cost reduct ion for St at oil in handling and m aint aining
huge seism ic dat a volum es
13
27
Norwegian NDR – success fact ors
• A NDR is not a m useum , nor an archive …but it should be a living dat a base…
• A NDR and t he governm ent release policy are st rongly conect ed
• High focus on get t ing dat a in, qualit y assure t he dat a and get t ing t he dat a out
of t he syst em and used by governm ent and indust ry
• Dat a qualit y ( next slide)
• Assure support / buy in from oil com panies and cont ract or com panies
• Governm ent report ing should be in line wit h com panies int ernal specs
• Governm ent report ing from oil com panies m ust be t im ely..
• Secure use ( t echnical, operat ional, st aff …build in t rust ..)
• Operat ional business m odel …t he right incent ives
• Clear on all legal and cont ract ual aspect s..predict able fut ure..
• Organisat ional – all st akeholders should be included
28
Success fact ors - Dat a qualit y
• Reliable dat a qualit y is essent ial for success.
• Knowledge about t he st at us of qualit y is m ore im port ant t han
always having highest qualit y.
• Consist ency in qualit y is im port ant
– exam ple: H igh Qualit y Log D at a in Norway,
( not highest possible qualit y but consist ent ! )
• I n t he first phase of t he Norwegian NDR a lot of effort was
required t o load seism ic according t o agreed st andard t o t he NDR.
• Difficult balance bet w een high qualit y and required effort .
– Dat a qualit y will increase over t im e in case dat a is used
frequent ly
– But a feedback loop is st rongly required
14
29
The balance bet ween “ Cooperat ion and
Com pet it ion”
• I n Norway it was decided t o coope r a t e on DM and com pe t e on
int erpret at ion.
• Good clim at e for cooperat ion in Norway.
– cult ure
• Com panies st rive t o creat e I nform at ion
– “ appreciat
by t he
ies t o gain
asym med”
et ries
in taut
hehorit
m arked
com aut
pethorit
it iveies
advant
• Norwegian
give “ages
st rong” advices, but are also willing t o
cooperat e ( good balance) .
• Trust is essent ial.
• Make sure t hat t he syst em is secure
– but don’t get “ hyst eric” about securit y.
30
Mot ivat ion
• What is t he m ot ivat ion for est ablishing a Nat ional Dat a Reposit ory in
your count ry ???
15
31
I nform at ion and t he Mult iplier Effect
Com pet it ive
Necessit y
Com pet it ive
Advant age
Technology
St rat egy
I nform at ion
St rat egy
Technology
Orient at ion
I nform at ion
Orient at ion
Cost Savings for
Efficiency
Creat ing Value for
Effect iveness
16
a n d su cce ss fa ct or s for a N D R
Source :
ht t p: / / www.agiweb.org/ ngdrs/ ndr5/ post conference/ present
at ions/ Tonst ad.ppt
Kj e t il Ton st a d
Ex plor a t ion M a n a ge r M iddle Ea st
St a t oil ASA
2
Cont ent
• Short present at ion of St at oil
• The value of I nform at ion
• I nform at ion “ front end loading”
• The Whale – “ from am bit ion t o act ion”
• The Diskos proj ect – a sim ple “ pay back” evaluat ion
• Nat ional Dat a St ores - im port ant success fact ors
1
3
This is St at oil
• A m aj or oil producer:
one m illion barrels per day
• World’s t hird largest crude oil seller
• Market s t wo- t hirds of all Norwegian gas t o
European cust om ers
• Largest ret ailer of oil product s in Scandinavia
• A group wit h clear growt h t arget s
4
Operat ions in 28 count ries
2
5
Product ion of oil and gas is rising
1 000 boe/d
6% annual
prodn growth
1600
1 350
1400
1200
1000
Oil and gas product ion
( 2003: 1 080 000 boe per day)
966
1 003
1 007
1 074
1 080
I NT 8.2%
1 120
NCS 91.8%
800
600
I ncrease in product ion
1 350 000 boe per day in 2007
400
I NT 25%
200
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
Oil
2004
target
2007
target
NCS 75%
Gas
Th e va lu e of I n for m a t ion
What is t he value of dat a and inform at ion?
3
7
Quest ions and answers
• Typical quest ion
– Shall I acquire a 2D or 3D survey in t his area?
– Should I shoot seism ic or j ust drill anot her well?
– Shall I acquire a core in t his well?
– Should I by anot her st udy?
• Typical answers from your Manager
– What is t he cost
– What is it wort h
– What is t he ret urn on t his invest m ent ?
8
Value of I nform at ion
• I t ’s t he difference bet ween t he proj ect value wit h t he inform at ion and
t he proj ect value wit hout t he inform at ion, m inus t he cost of acquiring
t he inform at ion
• These im plies t hat :
– t here m ust be alt ernat ive out com e, ot herwise no inform at ion could
add value, which again is t he sam e as t o say t hat t here m ust be
uncert aint y
• I f t here is uncert aint y
– t here m ust be choices, if t here is no choices – t here is no decisions
t o be m ade, and inform at ion is in fact wort hless
4
9
I nform at ion
• According t o t he I nform at ion Theory:
– I nform at ion is defined as - “ reduct ion of uncert aint y”
Dat a and I nform at ion will reduce uncert aint y in proj ect s…!
9 A NDR should provide Dat a and I nform at ion t o Governm ent and
I ndust ry and t hereby cont ribut e t o proj ect risk m it igat ion and
hence increased value creat ion!
10
IT EFFORT COMPARED WITH SUCCESS
700
But , will t here be a difference in
overall perform ance in a count ry
wit h m uch relevant Dat a and
I nform at ion available t o t he
indust ry com pared t o a count ry
wit hout ?
600
Reserves Addition
500
400
300
200
100
0
0
50
100
150 Staff
Support
(Data Management and TAs)
200
250
300
Paras 1999
5
11
Breakthrough: The Information Orientation of an
organization is linked to performance
I nform at ion
Orient at ion
Business
Perform ance
Pe ople
I n for m a t ion
Te ch n ology
Pr oa ct ive n e ss
Se nsin g
M a n a ge m e n t
Sha r ing
Pr oce ssing
I n nova t ion
Tr a nspa r e ncy
M a int a ining
Con t r ol
Or ga n iz ing
Busin e ss
Pr oce ss
Ope r a t ions
For m a lit y
{
• M a r k e t Sh a r e Gr ow t h
• Fin a n cia l Pe r for m a n ce
• Le ve l of I n nova t ion
• Su pe r ior Com pa n y
Re pu t a t ion
Colle ct ing
I nt e gr it y
Source: Dr. Donald A. Marchand
12
6
13
I nform at ion “ Front end loading” : Cost
Gr a h a m Tile y Sh e ll Ex plor a t ion
14
The Whale – “ from am bit ion t o act ion”
7
15
I nform at ion “ Front end loading” : Va lu e
Gr a h a m Tile y Sh e ll Ex plor a t ion
16
Uncert aint y – Choice – I nform at ion - value
• I t is im port ant t o focus invest m ent s t owards inform at ion and
inform at ion syst em s t hat support decisions at t he value generat ion
“ front - end” of t he proj ect life cycle
• Governm ent s should m ake all relevant Dat a and I nform at ion available
as front - end loading t o proj ect s t o m it igat e risk and t hereby m axim ise
revenues from all invest m ent s
• Dat a and I nform at ion not in use has absolut e no value t o nobody..!
• A NDR will cont ribut e t o risk m it igat ion and value creat ion by m aking
im port ant Dat a and I nform at ion available t o governm ent and indust ry
8
Th e N or w e gia n N D R
A success st ory
18
The Diskos proj ect
M a in obj e ct ive s a s t h e y w h e r e for m u la t e d in 1 9 9 3 !
" e st a blish a j oin t , ce n t r a l da t a ba se for im por t a n t
qu a lit y a ssu r e d ge o- da t a a n d m a k e t h e m e a sily
a cce ssible for t h e u se r "
Re qu ir em e n t spe cifica t ion for Cen t r a l Ge o- D a t a St or a ge
N PD 1 1 t h Ju n e 1 9 9 3
9
19
The Norwegian NDR Challenge
Bu ild a br idge be t w e e n t h e oil com pa n ie s n e e d t o
st or e , m a n a ge a n d a cce ss r a w da t a , a n d t h e
gove r n m e n t n e e d t o bu ild a n d m a in t a in a n a t ion a l
da t a ba se
20
Post st ack seism ic wit hout NDR
Ta p
es
Operator
Partners
Processing contractor
Authorities
Archive
10
21
Post st ack seism ic wit h NDR
Processing contractor
Tapes
NDR
Ne
tw
o rk
Operator
Partners
Authorities
22
Evaluat ion of t he DI SKOS
proj ect , an exam ple
Process
Time used
in 1999
Logging in
2 min
Selecting data
5-10 min
Processing a
request
(1000km/3D
survey)
Network transfer
(13-14 Gb/hour)
10 min/2hours
Total
1 day
Time used
in1992
10 min/5hours
(8bit data)
10 days
" I n short t im e ( approxim at ely 5 m in) was t he dat a overview est ablished in t he
act ual area ( Nordland I I ) " . Fra: Vurdering av Pet roBank desem ber 96 av rådgiver Geir St øle, St at oil
11
23
Data downloaded from the Diskos
data base from 1999 to mid 2003
2500
2000
1500
Giga
byte
1000
500
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
Accumulated download 1999 – 2003 = 57 Terabyte
Total data volume in database = 60 Terabyte
2003
Source: PetroData a/s
24
Evaluat ion of t he DI SKOS proj ect
Benefits
zTangible benefit s
–reduced act ivit y in G&G ar chive
–dat a ver sion cont rol
–reduced st orage cost
–refor m at t ing
–int er nal and ex t ernal dist r ibut ion
–work st at ion for m at t ing
–reduced SW and HW inv est m ent
–reduced disk space needs
–dat a select ion and overview
–spec dat a select ion
–effect ive & safe dat a t rade
–NPD updat es ( cult ur e dat a)
zI nt angible benefit s
–fast er proj ect cycle t im e
–m ore dat a accessible
–qualit y assur ed dat a ( im pr oved
user confidence)
–m ore effect iv e dat a flow from
cont ract or s t o St at oil
–use of st andar ds
–easy r eport ing t o NPD
–easy r eport ing of dat a in license
" The maps are not beeing more correct
if you put them into a screen"
e
lL
i
A
rsa
e
sn
iA
m
n
e
R
u
o
n
o
a
L
e
lè
ri-v
C
a
h
sM
zé
n
tiS
a
o
L
sa
viB
u
e
n
C
e
a
M
te
z
rE
vxu
e
e
-lB
ra
D
cu
o
-rsu
lC
n
â
h
M
a
e
iP
ra
s
e
ls
iV
ra
ycN
n
a
e
n
o
çA
l
S
tru
o
b
sa
g
n
e
cu
itS
a
-B
r
rE
vy
u
lM
n
e
rC
a
h
tse
m
re
iQ
p
u
n
la
iE
p
la
vL
rT
se
yo
m
u
C
a
th
n
o
m
ca
lC
o
é
sn
lO
a
r
e
L
M
sn
a
lu
o
V
se
se
n
R
re
A
xu
fro
lB
e
t
se
V
n
a
o
jn
i
D
rA
e
g
n
s
so
iB
l
n
o
ça
B
se
tN
n
a
se
re
N
vs
ru
o
T
s
B
ru
o
se
g
te
riP
o
s
tC
â
h
ru
a
e
xo
a
L
-e
h
ru
R
co
sY
n
e
-sn
o
lL
riS
u
a
n
o
M
câ
e
-sn
o
lL
riS
u
a
o
it
rN
B
ru
o
g
e
la
L
h
R
co
G
ré
u
te
ycA
e
n
ê
u
lA
m
o
g
n
e
n
e
itS
a
É
m
se
g
i
L
o
n
o
yL
m
C
a
h
ré
b
y
e
lm
rC
tn
o
-F
d
a
e
lu
T
e
lG
rb
o
n
e
L
P
yu
g
xu
e
iP
ré
a
lc
iA
ru
e
cn
lV
a
B
ro
xu
a
e
d
ro
C
h
a
s
M
e
d
n
G
p
a
vsa
iP
r
g
e
i
D
n
ze
R
d
o
A
n
e
g
M
tn
o
-e
d
ra
s
m
se
i
N
M
tn
o
a
b
u
g
n
o
iA
v
b
l
iA
h
A
cu
P
u
a
o
e
u
slT
ce
i
N
e
ilrM
tn
o
p
e
liM
ra
s
o
u
lT
n
ra
T
se
b
e
n
o
sC
ra
c
a
tiB
s
xo
iF
g
n
a
iP
re
p
o
ia
cA
j
Stortingsmann Bastesen på
Geodesi og Hydrografidagene
20.11.98
12
25
Evaluat ion of t he DI SKOS proj ect
The tangible benefits exeeds the cost!
Cost ac
Benerfit ac
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
2,1
4,8
9,1
13,9
19,2
26,2
33,5
0
0
0
5
15
42,4
69,8
Cost reduction in 1999
26
1 st , 2 nd , 3 rd and 4 t h levels of effect s
• 1 st level: I nform at ion “ front - end loading” and risk m it igat ion
• 2 nd level: Report ing and dist ribut ion of dat a t o governm ent and
part ners
• 3 rd level: More efficient St at oil int ernal access t o dat a
• 4 t h level: Overall cost reduct ion for St at oil in handling and m aint aining
huge seism ic dat a volum es
13
27
Norwegian NDR – success fact ors
• A NDR is not a m useum , nor an archive …but it should be a living dat a base…
• A NDR and t he governm ent release policy are st rongly conect ed
• High focus on get t ing dat a in, qualit y assure t he dat a and get t ing t he dat a out
of t he syst em and used by governm ent and indust ry
• Dat a qualit y ( next slide)
• Assure support / buy in from oil com panies and cont ract or com panies
• Governm ent report ing should be in line wit h com panies int ernal specs
• Governm ent report ing from oil com panies m ust be t im ely..
• Secure use ( t echnical, operat ional, st aff …build in t rust ..)
• Operat ional business m odel …t he right incent ives
• Clear on all legal and cont ract ual aspect s..predict able fut ure..
• Organisat ional – all st akeholders should be included
28
Success fact ors - Dat a qualit y
• Reliable dat a qualit y is essent ial for success.
• Knowledge about t he st at us of qualit y is m ore im port ant t han
always having highest qualit y.
• Consist ency in qualit y is im port ant
– exam ple: H igh Qualit y Log D at a in Norway,
( not highest possible qualit y but consist ent ! )
• I n t he first phase of t he Norwegian NDR a lot of effort was
required t o load seism ic according t o agreed st andard t o t he NDR.
• Difficult balance bet w een high qualit y and required effort .
– Dat a qualit y will increase over t im e in case dat a is used
frequent ly
– But a feedback loop is st rongly required
14
29
The balance bet ween “ Cooperat ion and
Com pet it ion”
• I n Norway it was decided t o coope r a t e on DM and com pe t e on
int erpret at ion.
• Good clim at e for cooperat ion in Norway.
– cult ure
• Com panies st rive t o creat e I nform at ion
– “ appreciat
by t he
ies t o gain
asym med”
et ries
in taut
hehorit
m arked
com aut
pethorit
it iveies
advant
• Norwegian
give “ages
st rong” advices, but are also willing t o
cooperat e ( good balance) .
• Trust is essent ial.
• Make sure t hat t he syst em is secure
– but don’t get “ hyst eric” about securit y.
30
Mot ivat ion
• What is t he m ot ivat ion for est ablishing a Nat ional Dat a Reposit ory in
your count ry ???
15
31
I nform at ion and t he Mult iplier Effect
Com pet it ive
Necessit y
Com pet it ive
Advant age
Technology
St rat egy
I nform at ion
St rat egy
Technology
Orient at ion
I nform at ion
Orient at ion
Cost Savings for
Efficiency
Creat ing Value for
Effect iveness
16