Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Specialized Rig-Crew Training Produces Results for New Technology Drilling Rigs
Richard A. Plageman, Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co., Scott A. Milliren Helmerich & Payne International
Drilling Co., J.D. Blackman, Helmerich & Payne International Drilling Co.
that people would be more likely to stay employed long-term. safety processes. Major tasks included performing STOP
This will result in better crew integrity and ultimately observations, writing Job Safety Analyses, performing and/or
improve productivity. participating in a Lock Out/Tag Out process, performing a
Another way the company wanted to improve Dropped Object Inspection, attaching lacing wire to bolt
productivity was to capture and use organizational learnings. heads, and hoisting personnel.
The construction team established regular forums with field The second project goal was to reduce the total well
leadership so that best practices would be integrated into the cost and cycle time. This is accomplished by ensuring the rig
new rig design. Other means for implementing lessons equipment is available to operate when needed and the crews
learned came from the HSE management system, the Rig know how to use it. Operation and maintenance skills of the
Asset Management System (RAMSTM), other training following systems would be critical in meeting the second
programs and the use of the company’s Wide Area Network to goal: Varco Automated Drawworks System (ADS-20SD),
share organizational learnings. The company took this wealth Varco Integrated Control and Information System with
of knowledge and used it to apply new ideas in design Electronic Driller (VICIS-eD), the Variable Frequency Drives
and technology. (VFD) and AC motors, Varco TDS-11HP, power generation
The last goal was to build the right rig at the best system, hydraulics system, air system, solids control system,
value. To accomplish this, the company implemented Lean and the Varco ST-80 “mechanized tongs”.
Manufacturing techniques to take advantage of the economy The last skill set also supports the second project
of scale in building thirty-two identical rigs. This meant that goal. The rig crews were created out of a pool of existing
rig crews would not be part of the construction effort and employees and newly hired personnel. The teams were
would meet their rig for the first time during mobilization to assembled for each rig and needed to go through the forming
the first well site. and storming phases of the Team Growth3 cycle in order to set
themselves up for optimum performance at the rig site. The
Performance Analysis. Majer1 describes a performance key skills included effective communication, trust, planning,
analysis as a tool to use to find out the differences between and shared leadership.
what people should be doing and what they are doing. Then a
decision can be made as to whether instruction or some other Program Development
action is needed to correct the problems. An analysis of a Once the project’s goals were understood, the need for
previous new rig build program uncovered situations where training was established and the skills to teach were identified,
training would have helped. Some examples include damage the next step was to develop the program. Just like it did in rig
to equipment and excess downtime because the crews did not design, the company decided to leverage organizational
know proper operating procedures; excess drilling times learnings to create the training program. Training was a main
because drillers did not understand the optimum techniques in topic at the regular forums held with field leadership.
operating the advanced rig control systems, and higher than Curriculum, costs and logistics were all discussed and agreed
expected turnover due to frustration with the rig and new team upon by several layers of management. This approach
members. All three of these examples could have been fostered an atmosphere of open communication, which led to
prevented if the teams knew how to operate and care for the strong leadership support.
equipment and if they had been given the opportunity to build
a team foundation before going to the rig site. Target Population Analysis. Before the details of how to
In the new project, the potential for similar events implement the training program are fully developed, trainers
was very high. The volume of rigs, volume of people and the must analyze the characteristics of the attendees. There are six
extent of new technology created a high risk that the rig teams categories of information that will paint an accurate picture of
would not be able to meet the project goals. Relying on who will be trained: Interests, Prior Training, Personal
“OJT” would not create successful start-ups and could Benefit to Learning, Attitudes and Biases, Physical
ultimately cost the company millions of dollars in lost Characteristics and Cultural Characteristics4. By describing
revenue, maintenance repairs and a battered reputation. the audience in these terms, the curriculum can be tailored
Therefore the company leadership decided that a formal with examples, methods and amount of material to best fit the
training program was needed. audience and increase the amount of retention. The people
who were to attend the rig training have specific
Task Analysis. The last step in the needs analysis is to characteristics as listed below.
pinpoint what should be taught. Majer points out that the task 1. Interests: Rig crewmen are generally outdoors-
analysis will “reveal the components of competent type people. Some of their hobbies include hunting and
performance in a step-by-step look at how competent people fishing. Many of these people work on cars and build homes.
perform a task2.” It is beyond the scope of this paper to “Quiet time” is not a top priority.
describe the elements of the all the tasks in the analysis. 2. Prior Training: Most of these people will have
However, it is appropriate to discuss the categories of tasks in attended safety training tailored to rig work and some will
terms of skill sets useful to the rig crews in order to meet the have had formal training on drilling processes. Many will also
project goals. have experience with earlier versions of the equipment.
The first project goal was to reduce safety and 3. Personal Benefit to Learning: Most of the people
environmental incidents. To accomplish this the newly will see the training as necessary to be able to effectively
formed rig teams had to follow the company’s established
SPE/IADC 87102 3
operate the new rigs. Some will perceive the training as a company enlisted the help of a third party training vendor that
negative consequence for being put on the new rig. specializes in experiential learning to design and deliver the
4. Attitudes and Biases: Because of the high teambuilding classes. The company, in concert with the
technology and fear of not being able to work the equipment original equipment manufacturers (OEMs), designed the
properly, many of the learners will be open to learning the equipment operation and maintenance classes. The OEMs
new skills. Some will attend because they have to and will not provided invaluable assistance in creating the equipment
be fully engaged. The learners will not have a strong bias to related courses. Their involvement ranged from consulting on
classroom style lecture and must have activity to keep course design to full course construction and teaching.
them engaged. Alberto Ramirez and Dharmesh Prasad state that
5. Physical Characteristics: Almost the entire class “Trainees are motivated to (learn new skills) when (1) they are
will be male. The job-roles they fill are physical in nature. confident about using the skills, (2) perceive job-performance
6. Cultural Characteristics: There will be a improvement will likely occur as a result of use of the new
combination of English and Spanish speaking individuals. skills, and (3) believe that the knowledge and skills
The majority of people will be able to speak and read English. emphasized will help solve work-related problems.”5
There will be a mix of newly hired personnel and employees Therefore the classes were created from the perspective of the
with company experience. learner and the course objectives bear that out. Those learning
There are several key results from this analysis. objectives are detailed in Appendix 1. To further establish the
First, the attendees will respond best to “hands-on” activities link between training and work, each course was designed
that will allow them time to practice the skills. Second, the with as much “hands-on” instruction as possible. Actual rig
training must not be a repeat of past experiences; but, must components were staged in the training center to allow
address the company-culture issues associated with newly unfettered access during class. Major pieces of equipment
hired employees. All the topics covered should build off the included an ADS, an TDS-11HP with pipe handler and
learners’ current skills with equipment and HSE. Third, the traveling block, an VFD house, an Engine/Generator set, dual
physical characteristics of the class dictate that long lectures air compressors and solids control equipment. These pieces
will not be received well. To provide variety, the program were extremely useful in the practical experience of operation
should use a combination of lectures, small group activities, and care of the equipment. For the “hands-on” safety skills
and hands-on practice. training, the company built a fully functioning personnel
hoisting skid, rigged up floor tools, and created a mock-up of
Vision and Scope. With the analyses complete, the training the rig’s lock out/tag out system.
team set the vision and scope for the program. The
FlexRig3TM training program was designed to provide a Program Delivery
practical, start-up training program that: The FlexRigTM3 training program was conducted in a
1. Teaches hands-on rig skills. dedicated facility in a Greens Port, Houston warehouse that
2. Is a quality, professional and organized was located near the rig assembly facility. All pieces of
training effort. equipment were rigged up, permanently, until fabrication on
3. Is adaptable to changes in operational needs. the last rig. Then the rig components were put into service.
4. Is relevant. The rig crews attended between ten and four days of
5. Is supported by leadership. training based on their position (refer to Table 1). Rig
6. Helps eliminate recurring problems through Managers, Tourpushers, Drillers and Assistant Drillers
organizational learning. attended ten days of training. Derrickmen and Motormen
This program utilized actual rigs in the fabrication attended eight days and Floormen attended four days. Since
mode as well as rig components displayed in a dedicated Floormen account for over 65% of all company turnovers, the
training facility. The instructors came from within the purpose of the “tiered” training system was to maintain a cost-
company’s operations and included the rig-level leadership. effective program. The logical course of action was to teach
The training curriculum focused on HSE instruction combined the experienced, long-term employees who then would teach
with technical and operational topics. This foundation was and coach the new employees on the proper skills. If the new
then enhanced by the introduction of people skills. The goal Floormen were to leave the company, the lost investment is
in mind was to provide the crews with the “tools” required to not as great as if they attended all eight days.
work successfully as a team. The first twenty-five rigs were to be built at a pace of
one complete rig every fourteen days. This meant that two
Curriculum. We designed the curriculum to meet the basic complete rig crews had to be trained every month. The crews
skill needs of the rig crewmen as defined in the task analysis. began their training cycle as close to the rig’s mobilization as
Table 1 is a matrix of course titles. The courses are grouped possible. Daily class consisted of a combination of lecture,
by the three broad areas of HSE, technical and people skills small group instruction, and hands-on practice with the
and pinpoint the requirements for each position. The training equipment. The first two days for the Rig Managers and
team enlisted help from many sources within and outside the Drillers were conducted off-site at an OEM facility in Cedar
company. The HSE classes were created using the material Park, TX. The Derrickmen and Motormen joined the rig
from the company’s land, offshore and international leadership in Houston for the next four days, which were
operations. HSE professionals and field leaders alike dedicated to the maintenance and operation of the rig
contributed their lessons learned and teaching tools. The equipment. Day five in Houston was a teambuilding day and
4 SPE/IADC 87102
marked the first day that the full crews worked together. The 1. Did this class prepare you for your job?
teambuilding event used experiential learning techniques to 2. Do you feel confident to work on this equipment?
help the rig teams develop the people skills necessary to get 3. How well did the instructor teach the material?
through the forming and storming phases. The last three days 4. How would you rate the course handouts?
were dedicated to HSE skills training and maintenance tasks. 5. How would you rate the practical exercises?
In the last three days the instructors coached the rig leadership Table 2 details the mean scores for all classes within
to help set the standards of conduct for the team. the program. The overall program mean was a 4.69 with a
Unique to this training event was the crew’s access to standard deviation of 0.568. The scores were heavily skewed
the full drilling rig. At the end of each training day, the crews to the higher end of the scale; however, all classes were within
went to the rig-up yard for more hands-on learning. The Rig one standard deviation of the mean (Figure 1). These two
Managers were given a copy of the rig procedures at the facts demonstrate that the program was a quality, consistent
beginning of the program and some expectations on what tasks effort. The HSE classes maintained the highest mean of the
they should focus their crews’ attention at the rig-up yard. three skill groups. There were three classes that consistently
Examples include rig-up procedures, string-up procedures, scored lower than the program mean over the first few classes.
BOP handling procedures, bringing generators online and The training team analyzed the participant feedback and
working with the VICIS-eD system. The Rig Managers adjusted the classes to better suit the students’ needs.
directed the learning process in the yard and each morning the One interesting result from the learner surveys
instructors facilitated a discussion on what the crews learned centered on the “job relevance” questions (1, 2). The
the previous evening. attendees consistently felt that the HSE and people skills
classes were more relevant to their jobs than the technical
Organizational Learning. As the rigs went to work for skills classes.
customers, best practices began to emerge. The company’s
leadership reinstated the forum approach to sharing those Level Two – Learning. This measure attempts to show how
lessons. The instructors attended each forum and incorporated much a person has learned by attending a class. The tools
all new lessons learned into the course content. Likewise, if used to evaluate learning consist of tests, performance checks,
an incident occurred, the company’s management system peer evaluations and observation. Ramirez and Prasad5 have
ensured that the instructors were included in the shown in their efficacy model that learning does not
dissemination. Therefore, they would share the incidents with necessarily manifest in good job behaviors. Therefore, this
the incoming class and discuss lessons learned. The company program subjectively evaluated the student’s knowledge and
leadership’s support was instrumental in ensuring the training skills through instructor observation during the practical
program was always up-to-date. exercises. If needed, on-the-spot coaching was conducted to
ensure all crewmen learned the skills.
Training Evaluation
An organization invests resources into a training program this Level Three – Behavior Change. This measure attempts to
large expecting to gain a return larger than the investment. demonstrate that the learner’s are using the new skills at their
The return from training ultimately manifests itself in bottom- workplace. The instructors conducted field audits of several
line financial gains that are difficult to measure exactly. There crews to assess how well they were using the skills taught.
are many studies and best practices available for trainers to These field audits were not designed to be statistically valid
structure their evaluation programs. As Kurt Kraiger and nor were they designed as a formal study into the crews
David Peterson state, “Evaluation is primarily about making a behavior change. The main purpose of the field audits was to
credible case to support important business priorities.”6 The gauge the effectiveness of the training and to provide on-site
intent of evaluating this training program is to show that (1) coaching of deficient skills.
the learners have gained the necessary skills to perform their The instructors went to the rig with a prepared Field
jobs, (2) that they will use these skills and (3) that through the Audit Guide book that contained questions for them to ask the
use of these skills, the company performs better. The difficult rig crews. The interviews were conducted so as not to impact
part is to balance the need to accurately evaluate training’s the ongoing rig operations and may have been conducted one-
impact on the business and to allocate the resources needed to on-one or in groups. Based on the percent of questions
perform the evaluation. The more detailed the evaluation, the answered correctly, the crews are using their HSE skills more
more costly and time consuming the measurement program than the technical or people skills. Interestingly, this
will be. For this training program, the company used corresponds to the Level One surveys, which stated that the
Kirkpatrick’s four levels of evaluation7 to varying degrees. learner’s felt that the HSE skills were most relevant to their
jobs. Figure 2 compares the field audit scores to the end-of-
Level One – Learner’s Reaction. This evaluation measures class mean scores. The left vertical axis plots the Level One
the learner’s satisfaction with the training and is conducted mean scores by class and the right vertical axis plots the field
using a survey – commonly called a “smile sheet”. While this audit score for the corresponding class. The class titles on the
technique produces only a snapshot and will not predict future horizontal axis are ordered from highest to lowest Level One
behavior change in the attendees, it is useful in maintaining a survey mean score. This plot shows that there is a moderate
quality training experience. The survey used for this program correlation (r=0.4996) between audit scores and Level One
rated each class from one to five, with five being “best”. The survey scores on job relevance.
students answered five questions after each class.
SPE/IADC 87102 5
er
rill
r
ge
an
tD
he
n
na
an
km
ma
tan
us
Ma
orm
rric
urp
tor
sis
ille
Rig
Mo
F lo
De
To
As
Dr
Course Title
Technical Skills
Rig Asset Management System (RAMS) X X
Varco Integrated Control and Information System (VICIS eD) X X X X
Automated Drawworks System (ADS-20SD) X X X X X X
Top Drive System (TDS-11HP) X X X X X X
Variable Frequency Drive House (VFD) X X X X X X
Solids Control X X X X X X
Genset Controls & Maintenance X X X X X X
Air System X X X X X X
Basic Hydraulics X X X X X X
ST-80 Mechanized Tongs X X X X X X X
P-Quip Liner Changing System X X X X X X X
Fabrivalve X X X X X X X
Basic Lubricants X X X X X X X
Flex3 Lubrication Management X X X X X X X
Superbolts X X X X X X X
Hydraulics-Electrical-Fiber Optics Best Practices X X X X X X X
HSE and People Skills
Yard Orientation X X X X X X X
Teambuilding X X X X X X X
Log Out/Tag Out System (LO/TO) X X X X X X X
Personnel Hoisting X X X X X X X
Hand Safety X X X X X X X
Safety Training Observation Program (STOP) X X X X X X X
Job Safety Analysis (JSA) X X X X X X X
Safety Tiewire X X X X X X X
Man-Lift Operation X X X X X X X
Dropped Objects Campaign X X X X X X X
Safety Commitments X X X X X X X
4.60
4.50
4.40
4.30
4.20
4.10 σpop = .568
4.00
210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235
FlexRig Number
Figure 1: Program Mean Scores with 1 Standard Deviation.
4.80 100%
(% Correct Questions)
Field Audit Scores
4.60 80%
4.40 60%
4.20 40%
4.00 20%
r = 0.4996
3.80 0%
O
SA
20
11
ty
ct
2B
se
n
s)
t
g
cs
g
tro
en
O
io
/T
te
fe
in
ra
tin
er
S-
ou
S-
J
si
51
ST
nt
LO
em
ys
on
Sa
ild
tP
d
is
Ba
AD
TD
H
ve
ea
rS
bu
C
o
es
ag
er
D
H
re
s
(L
s
am
Ai
VF
tB
ic
ng
an
lid
tP
el
ul
nn
Fi
Te
So
ec
M
ui
ec
ra
El
n
yd
bj
P-
io
r
d
&
H
Pe
at
an
s
ic
yd
H
br
pp
H
Lu
ro
Safety Training Observation Program. Process. The training team pulled questions from the key
1. Practice the basic principles of H&P’s STOP. learning objectives of each Flex3 class. The OEM course
2. Use non-threatening, questioning techniques during a providers developed questions for their respective courses.
STOP conversation. The questions are grouped according to topic in a Field Guide
3. Accept personal responsibility for safety on and off booklet used by the auditors to record the data. Figure 4
the job. shows two sample interview forms – one for an HSE topic and
one for an equipment topic. The audit process contains the
Job Safety Analysis. following elements:
1. Develop effective work plans following the 1. Plan - Operations Skills Trainer coordinates with field
JSA process. Operations Leaders to:
2. Identify potential hazards and the steps to a. Notify the rigs of an upcoming audit.
eliminate them. b. Discuss purpose of audits and auditor actions.
3. Conduct post-job assessments of the JSA. 2. Conduct – Technical Trainers conduct audit at rig site
4. Understand the value of a JSA in documenting a. Meet with Rig Manager for orientation and
best practices. safety brief.
b. Explain process for auditing.
Basic Equipment Lubrication and FlexRig3TM Lubrication c. Interview crewmen as available.
Management. d. Record data in Field Guide booklets.
1. Understand the benefits of lubrication management e. Back-brief Rig Manager.
for drilling rigs. 3. Compile Data and Analyze Results
2. Understand the basic principles behind a. Training Coordinator enters the information into
lubricating machinery. the database.
3. Know where the lubrication points are located on all b. Operations Skills Trainer analyzes data and
FlexRig3TM equipment. creates report.
4. Adjust training as needed (any or all of these actions)
Dropped Object Inspections. a. Adjust curriculum.
1. Understand the importance of inspecting for b. Recommend formal refresher.
overhead hazards. c. Send training materials to rig manager for
2. Understand H&P’s dropped object procedures. on-site training.
3. Conduct a dropped object inspection on a mast and 5. Repeat audit as requested.
top drive. 6. Continuous improvement of the audit process.
a. Review audit questions for value
Appendix 2 i. Operations leaders.
ii. Training leaders.
Description. The purpose of the FlexRig3TM (Flex3) Training iii. OEM course instructors.
Field Audit is to gauge the knowledge transfer of the Flex3 b. Develop more rigorous data reporting.
Training Program by assessing the rig crew’s retention of key
training points. This is a non-scientific audit that is done at Results. The audit process provides a review of the Flex3
the rig site. Time permitting, the auditor interviews crewmen learnings and tells the Training Department how well we are
alone or in small groups using a set of questions based on the teaching certain points. The report will show us the following
Flex3 training objectives. The value in the process is twofold. pieces of information:
First, the training department gains insight into how the men 1. Demographics of the crews audited
are using the skills gained at the Flex3 Training Program and 2. Percent correct answers at the rig level by topic
identifies areas for improvement. Second, the crews and 3. Percent correct answers for all rigs by topic
auditor share information with each other, which acts as a 4. Areas for reinforcement of key learnings
quick refresher of the key training points.
A baseline audit was performed on R234’s crews two
Scope. weeks after their training program ended. Based on this data
The audits will do the following: retention levels should be in the 75% to 100% range. Figure 3
1. Rig-based, non-punitive interviews of available shows a sample report.
crewmembers. The Training Department will use the results in the
2. Raw data tabulated and analyzed for the benefit of the following ways: 1) Provide on-the-spot refresher training to
Flex3 Training Program. the interviewed rig crewmen; 2) Identify trends to improve the
3. Provide on-the-spot refresher training. Flex3 Training Program; 3) Provide recommendations for
formal refresher training and/or performance coaching and
The audits will not do the following: 4) Provide data to begin building standards for future
1. Provide valid competency testing results. competency program development.
2. Impede the rig tasks by tying up crewmen.
3. Provide statistically valid data for use in comparing
crews’ performance.
SPE/IADC 87102 11
TDS11 62%
Average length of service
(Days) (Years)
GenSet 58%
82 Interviewed
Rig Managers = 5 6533 17.9
Drillers = 12 1452 4.0 Basic Hydrualics 64%
Derrrickmen = 15 1246 3.4
Motormen = 16 716 2.0 Teambuilding 84%
Floormen = 30 856 2.3
Pithands = 4 454 1.2 FlexRig3 Lube Management 79%
Legend
Personnel Hoisting & PPE 91%
=75% & higher
Potential refresher training topics
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
=60%-74%
=59% or less
Figure 3: FlexRig3 Field Audit Summary Report. Bars show the percent questions answered correctly.
12 SPE/IADC 87102
F L E X R IG 3 F IE L D A U D IT F O R M
D a te _
R ig # _
R ig M a n a g e r _
D r ille r _
T O P IC ST O P PR O G R AM COMMENTS
F le x R ig 3
C re w m e m b e rs q u e rie d P o s itio n T r a in e d ? 1 2 3 4 5 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Q u e rie s : A n s w e rs :
1 D o y o u h a v e th e rig h t (a n d re sp o n s ib ility ) to s to p a n u n s a f e Y e s , it is e v e ry o n e 's re s p o n s ib ility .
p ro c e d u re ? T o s h u t th e jo b d o w n if n e e d e d ?
2 W h a t d o e s "A B B I" m e a n ? H o w d o y o u a p p ly th e te c h n iq u e ? L o o k in g A b o v e , B e lo w , B e h in d , a n d In s id e fo r
h a za rd s . D e m o n s tra te .
3 W h a t is a "q u e stio n in g a ttitu d e "? E X : W h a t in ju rie s c o u ld o c c u r if th e u n e x p e c te d
h a p p e rs ? / W h a t c a n b e d o n e d iffe re n tly ?
4 W h e n y o u r in v o lv e d in a jo b a n d y o u r c o -w o rk e r m a k e s a In a n u n th re a te n in g ly , o p e n -m in d e d m a n n e r.
S T O P o b se rv a tio n , h o w d o y o u re sp o n d to th e m ?
5 C a n y o u n a m e a p o te n tia l h a z a rd o u s in c id e n t th a t w a s L is t o n e o r tw o in s ta n c e s .
a v o id e d b e c a u se y o u p e rso n a lly u se d th e S T O P o b se rv a tio n
p ro c e d u re s?
6 If y o u o b se rv e d a su p e rv is o r in v o lv e d in a n u n s a f e a c t, w o u ld y o u sto p Y e s . It's p a rt o f e v e ry o n e 's jo b to s to p u n s a fe a c ts .
th e jo b a n d d isc u ss th e h a z a rd s?
R e v ie w s :
1 E x a m in e a s a m p lin g o f th e c u rre n t S T O P C a rd s o n th e rig . N o te if th e y re f le c t a c o n v e rsa tio n a s p a rt o f th e d o c u m e n ta tio n
2 A re th e S T O P c a rd s re v ie w e d a n d sh a re d d a ily o r w e e k ly a m o n g th e c re w s?
3 A re S T O P c a rd s re a d ily a v a ila b le to th e c re w s ?
Review s:
1