Quality Management System

SIEP-EPT-PW

EPT-PD-QA-3010
Document Number:
Security Classification: Restricted
ECCN: EAR 99

Document History

Date Revision Reason for change Originator Approval

Initial draft release from Global Michele Gregory
Dec 08 00
review Reed Arnold

Draft release for Internal PW review Michele Gregory

Mar 09 01
(see distribution list on next page) Reed Arnold

Draft release for final review and Michele Gregory

June 09 02
approval Reed Arnold

Michele Gregory
Aug 09 03 Final Release for Implementation
Reed Arnold

Restricted
This document is made available subject to the condition that the recipient will neither use nor disclose the
contents except as agreed in writing with the copyright owner. Copyright is vested in Shell International
Exploration & Production B.V., The Hague.

© Shell International Exploration & Production B.V., 2007. All rights reserved.
Neither the whole nor any part of this document may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means
(electronic, mechanical, reprographic, recording or otherwise) without the prior written consent of the copyright
owner.

Comments:
Comments pertaining to this document or improvements to the QM System are welcome and should be made to
either the document originator or approver.
 Document Reviewer List

Review
Revision Reviewer Organization or Representative
Date
Jan 28, 09 Rev0 Stephen Webber EP – Quality Global Lead
June 09 02 Doug Peart Deepwater GM
June 09 02 Jay Smith Engineering and Construction GM
May 09 01 Denise Elston Concept Engineering GM
Engineering Managers
Mar 09 01 Ram Gopalkrishnan Subsea Pipelines EM
Mar 09 01 Hyonsook Kang Subsea Controls and Automation EM
Mar 09 01 Luis Cosme Subsea Hardware EM
Mar 09 01 Frank Pattee Subsea Systems EM
Civil Marine EM
Mar 09 01 Denby Morrison
(TA1 – Offshore Structures)
Mar 09 01 Stephen Hodges Civil Marine EM
Mar 09 01 Alan Leitko Subsea Process/Flow Assurance EM
Mar 09 01 Jeanne-Marie Lablanc Facilites EM
Mar 09 01 John Tarbell Project Engineering EM
Mar 09 01 Joe Bulovas Facilites EM
Mar 09 01 Dennis Schneider Project Engineering EM
Mar 09 01 Paul Pickering Unconventional Oils EM
Mar 09 01 Tracy Harris Construction EM
Technical Stewards - Deepwater
Mar 09 01 David LaCaze TS for Subsea Hardware
Mar 09 01 Robert Von Tungeln TS for Subsea Umbilicals
Mar 09 01 Maarten SimonThomas TS for Corrosion
Mar 09 01 Frans Kopp TS for Pipeline
Mar 09 01 John Simon TS for Subsea Controls
Mar 09 TS for Offshore Civil Structural
01 David Knoll
(PTE Floating Structures)
Mar 09 01 Pat Smith TS for Onshore Civil Structural
Mar 09 01 Ian Still TS for Subsea Systems
Mar 09 01 Wade Schoppa TS for Process/Flow Assurance
Technical Stewards – Engineering and Construction
Mar 09 01 John Bett TS for Static Mechanical
Mar 09 01 Olin Schumert TS for Rotating Equipment
Mar 09 01 Don Sanders TS for Topside Controls
Mar 09 01 John Riviere TS for Topside Electrical
Mar 09 01 Neil Johnston TS for Project Engineering
Mar 09 01 Alistair Salisbury TS for Process Engineering

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 2 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
 Table of Contents

1 Background 5

1.1 Vision............................................................................................................................. 5
1.1.1 Global Vision........................................................................................................ 5
1.1.2 Local EPT Vision.................................................................................................. 5

2 Introduction 6

2.1 Document Application.................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Document Purpose....................................................................................................... 6

3 Quality Management System – Overview 7

4 Quality Management System – System Description 8

4.1 Inputs............................................................................................................................. 8

4.2 Actions/Tools for Planning and Delivery....................................................................8

4.3 Outputs.......................................................................................................................... 8
4.3.1 Quality Records and Data Management System..................................................9
4.3.2 Metrics and KPIs.................................................................................................. 9
4.3.3 Leading and Lagging Indicators...........................................................................9

4.4 Corrections/Continuous Improvement......................................................................10

4.4.1 Metrics and KPI.................................................................................................. 10
4.4.2 Causal Learning................................................................................................. 10

5 Quality Management System – Contents 11

5.1 Resources.................................................................................................................... 12

5.2 Templates.................................................................................................................... 12

5.3 Inspector Management............................................................................................... 13

5.4 Vendor Management................................................................................................... 13

5.5 Audits........................................................................................................................... 13

5.6 Procedures and Processes........................................................................................14

5.6.1 Organization of Procedures................................................................................14
5.6.2 General Approval and Review Processes (Non-DCAF).....................................15
5.6.3 Overarching Procedures and Links to Shell Procedures....................................16

6 Quality Management System – Summary 22

Appendix A: Definitions..........................................................................................23

Appendix B: Referenced Documents............................................................26

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 3 of 32
Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Appendix C: Quality Road Map..........................................................................28

Appendix D: Quality Policy...................................................................................29

Appendix E: EPT-PW Quality Assessment Pilot – Case Study...........30

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 4 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
1 Background

1.1 Vision
1.1.1 Global Vision
Shell has been emphasizing improvements to the Shell Quality Management System. One of the
business objectives is to establish and make visible a globally connected quality capability with
systems supporting design, manufacturing and construction business areas. This is just the start
of the journey, and much work remains to be done in order to realise the vision of “one Shell way
of doing projects”.

On the Global front, Quality Management’s remit is to formally establish a functional role for quality
in Projects by:

 drawing together best practices (e.g. EP OPMG and GS/DS SGSi Quality processes,
procedures, tools, etc,);

 establishing a community for Project Practitioners to develop quality expertise;

 deploying consistent methodologies and tools (building on what is in place, and

improving to meet business expectations);

 supporting the Shell Project Academy in addressing quality in the core curriculum;

 establishing a Community of Practice to connect upstream and downstream projects

providing both a sounding board and source of help to share practices and learnings.

The goal is to develop and implement an aligned standard delivery model for Quality
Management within EP and GSP projects.

In order to achieve this, the vision for Quality is:

To introduce and implement a robust, world-class quality centre of

excellence through a connected community of quality practitioners that
drives global simplification and standardisation of quality processes to
the benefit of Projects.

1.1.2 Local EPT Vision

In efforts to cascade the above vision the following vision statements of the local SIEP-EPT-PW
Quality Management Organization are:

 One common quality management system that forms the foundation of ensuring zero
quality incidents within EPT-PW.

 Causal reasoning / learning is used to identify root causes and generate sustainable
solutions.

 The projects organization sees the quality system as a risk based and cost effective
enabler of project success.

 A quality culture exists within EPT-PW and the organization proactively identifies systemic
opportunities to ensure project quality.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 5 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
2 Introduction

2.1 Document Application

The Quality Management System (QMS) presented in this document applies to the SIEP-EPT-PW
organization. The QMS shall be used by projects executed by the EPT-PW organization, which
are beginning their Select, Define or Execute Phase as of January 2009. Projects that are already
in progress as of January 2009 should apply elements of the QMS as needed to benefit the project
as determined by the Project Manager. The QMS applies to work being completed by members
of the EPT-PW organization for packages/elements they hold individual accountability and shall
consider the requirements of the customers and/or organizational owner of the project.

The QMS serves as the overarching process that encompasses all other quality and assurance
activities and is a central point of management and quality resources. The QMS contains all of the
processes centrally to simplify the system and projects. Simplifying the system allows projects to
refer to the QMS to prevent re-stating or addressing central procedures. As an example: The
quality policy applies to all of SIEP-EP and does not need repeating at lower levels or within
project level documentation.

2.2 Document Purpose

The purpose of this document is to summarize the different aspects of the SIEP-EPT-PW QMS
and to serve as the central point of reference in regards to quality processes within SIEP-EPT-PW.
As the document develops, overarching explanation and reference to different Shell processes in
regards to quality will be included. For example, the interfaces between DCAF, Flawless Project
Delivery (FPD), Technical Integrity Verification (TIV) and QMS will be explained.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 6 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
3 Quality Management System – Overview
The QMS in its simplest form is a system including a series of interrelated processes, tools, and
people whose aim is to work
together to accomplish the
product, project quality. The
QMS focuses on the whole rather
than just the isolated parts and
allows the organization to
outperform its individual silos by
sharing best practices from within
and optimize its resources and
opportunities.

Figure 1 illustrates the

continuous improvement process
as depicted in the ISO standard.
In this Figure, the cycle is
illustrated by the enablers
(Management Responsibility,
Resource Management, Product
Realization, and Measurement,
Analysis and Improvement) that
Figure 1: ISO QMS Cycle
allow the process to occur.

The QMS was developed in accordance to elements of the ISO standards. It is not the intent to
become ISO certified in EPT-PW.

These enablers (Management Responsibility, Resource Management, Product Realization, and

Measurement, Analysis and Improvement) are required to support the four phases of the system
cycle.

The QMS is comprised of four phases of a system cycle. The quality organization has resources
and processes to enable each aspect of the Deming’s PDCA cycle – see Figure 2. The PDCA
(Plan-Do-Check-Act) is an iterative four-step problem solving process used in quality control and is
referred to as Deming Cycle or the Deming wheel.

Plan: Design or revise business process components to

improve results

Do: Implement the plan and measure its performance

Check: Assess the measurements and report the results to

decision makers

Act: Decide on changes needed to improve the process

Figure 2: Deming PDCA Model/Cycle

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 7 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
4 Quality Management System – System Description
The QMS can be segregated into four basic phases of a standard system: Inputs, Actions/Tools,
Outputs, and Corrections. These also align with the four phases of the Deming Model: Plan, Do,
Check and Act (Figure 2) and with the ISO QMS system outline (Figure 1). For simplicity, the
QMS is described below based on the Deming model versus the ISO model. Each are the same
but organized differently: organized by phases (Deming) or organized by enablers (ISO). The
majority of the contents of the system deal with the actions that include tools, resources, and the
procedures of the system. Each of the four phases (Deming Phases) of the system is described in
detail in the following sections.

The section below relates to the model showing the input into a process/action and then output of
the process/action.

4.1 Inputs
The inputs to the QMS are:

 Industry standards

 Shell Global Standards and Best Practices

 Project/Customer requirements

 Shell organizational guidance and expectations or organizational changes

As the QMS develops over time, these inputs change which drive the needs of the QMS. The
QMS will change to reflect the needs of Shell, Industry Standards, and Customers. The first three
inputs listed above are self-explanatory. The forth input: Shell organizational guidance and
expectations include many expectations that may alter how projects are executed that are not
inside Shell global standards. Some examples of organization guidance are: implementing new
local policies, direction to be ISO certified or not, direction to have DNV compliant or certified
designs, and organizational structure changes.

4.2 Actions/Tools for Planning and Delivery

The Actions and Tools that comprise the majority of the QMS include the following:

 Processes and Procedures

 Templates
 Resources
 Data Management Systems
 Inspector Management
 Vendor Management
Each of these items is discussed in more detail in Section 5.0 QMS Contents.

4.3 Outputs
The outputs from the QMS include the following data:

 Quality Records (for Projects and equipment)

 Quality Data
 Metrics or KPIs (Key Performance Indicators)

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 8 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
4.3.1 Quality Records and Data Management System
The QMS will also include a Quality Management System Database. The purpose of the database
is to facilitate projects and engineers with data to allow the storage and maintenance of project
quality records (inspection reports, material traceability, non-conformance documents, test data,
etc..) and performance metrics. The QMS also consists of periodic independent trend analysis to
help indicate areas of concerns or performance patterns that can be resolved across multiple
groups of Shell. For example, changes in industry may trigger new areas of concern regarding
welding or material certifications or a particular vendor may start to have an increase in incidents
across multiple projects or Shell disciplines. The trend analysis may be evaluated and filtered on
the following different levels, for example:

 SIEP-EPT-PW
o By Engineering and Construction Organization
o By Deepwater Organization
o By Project
o By Discipline
o By Vendor
The Quality Management System Database is planned to be available by January 2010.

4.3.2 Metrics and KPIs

Metrics are the indicators that help the organization manage aspects of the business. Metrics
should measure something that is important to business results and can be measured accurately,
consistently, concretely, and efficiently. Metrics allow a discipline, project, manager, or
organization to quickly see actual performance results and trends. Selecting the right metrics
improves focus and increases management efficiency of issues and decreases future issues.
Evaluation of the metrics needs to be vetted and understood in order for the project to be
evaluated correctly. For example, the number of MOC items may indicate poor or good quality
performance depending on the number of manufacturing NCRs or the complexity and size scope
of the project.

Metrics can track performance of different areas of the business: policies/procedures, projects,
inspector performance, project status, and vendors. Examples of metrics are below:

 Quality System performance: % non-conformances found prior to a schedule, delay

incurring

 Project Level performance: % non-conformances open

 Engineering performance: - % action Items closed from Peer Review

 Discipline Level performance: # of high priority HAZOP Action items or MOC items

 Vendor Level performance: % of delivered goods with/without non-conformances

 Inspector Level performance: % non-conformances reported

Metrics ensure that measurement, collection and validation of data are effective and efficient, to
improve the organizations performance and enhances the satisfaction of customers and project
performance. Each project, manager, or discipline shall choose the metrics that are most
important (for example on-time delivery or cost of non-conformance) as their KPI. Key
Performance Indicators are the 1 or 2 metrics that are selected to be tracked.

4.3.3 Leading and Lagging Indicators

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 9 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Metrics/Performance Indicators can be leading or lagging indicators of performance.

 Leading –indicators used to signal possible future events

 Lagging – a lagging indicator is one that follows the event. The importance of a lagging
indicator is its ability to confirm that a pattern is occurring or is about to occur.

An example of the Leading indicators used in Shell is the Project Quality Health-Check Tool. Its
primary purpose is to benchmark how mature the organizations processes are, how well they are
embedded in the culture and to identify where the gaps are so that action can be identified to
improve. The Project Quality Health Check Tool is still being developed and implemented within
Shell. No two projects are the same, therefore the project needs should be taken into
consideration when using the Health Check Tool and certain aspects may need to be tailored to
suit the nature of the project and the organization managing it. The tool will consists of five
elements:

1. Quality Management System,

2. Management Responsibility,
3. Resource Management,
4. Product (Project) Realization and Measurement,
5. Analyses and Improvement,
Lagging indicators are by far the most widely used in industry, in particular, those associated with
measuring defects, e.g. % weld repair; % non-conformities; % waste. Flawless Project Delivery
contains recommended KPIs around the key Q-Areas (Leakage and Cleanliness, for example).

4.4 Corrections/Continuous Improvement

As in any system, the System should contain feedback loops for improvement. The feedbacks into
the QMS include actions taken on poor Metrics or KPI results and also through Causal Learning
investigations.

4.4.1 Metrics and KPI

In order for Metrics and Key Performance Indicators to be useful, corrective actions should be
taken when metrics are below standards or KPIs are below desired thresholds. Metrics and KPI’s
are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.3.2 and 4.3.3.

4.4.2 Causal Learning

A part of the QMS includes the function of causal learning/s. The goal of the causal learning
aspect is to:

1. Provide root cause identification of factors, events or procedures which cause quality
incidents to occur,
2. Provide learnings to the rest of the “Total Quality Management is not a destination
organization to institute solutions for but a journey toward improvement.”
continuous improvement of the
organization. V. Daniel Hunt
The QMS contains resources that are available
to study any significant incident or trend to determine the root cause. As the Data Management
System collects non-conformities, the records will be evaluated to identify significant trends for
possible investigations in order to prevent the non-conformances in the future. The results of the
causal learning investigations will be disseminated across the EPT organization.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 10 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
5 Quality Management System – Contents
In Section 4.0, it was listed that the majority of the QMS lies in the function of Planning and Doing.
In order to facilitate and implement a QMS a set of procedures, tools and resources is required.
The system is evaluated and improved upon to continuously improve the quality management
function. Each of the following actions/tools of the system is discussed in more detail in the
following sections.

 Resources
 Templates
 Inspector Management
 Vendor Management
 Audits
 Procedures and Processes
Since the quality organization manages the quality functions needed by projects, projects are able
to focus on project specific needs. The following Figure 3 illustrates the functions that are
managed by the QMS that support the projects and quality resources also assist projects manage
project specific quality aspects. Figure 3 contains the document Section reference (in Red text)

Figure 3: QMS Support for Managing Quality in Projects

that describes the item in more detail.
Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 11 of 32
Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
5.1 Resources
The quality organization has resources to enable each phase of the QMS ( ) to
ensure an effective and sustainable, complete QMS. The resources include the following:

Quality Manager

 Quality System Management Lead

o Construction and Manufacturing Quality Professionals

o Data Management Lead

 Quality Delivery Lead

o Inspectors

 Project Quality Leads

 Causal Learning Lead

The overall management of the Quality resources is similar to the management of the different
technical disciplines within the Shell organization. The overall quality capabilities of the quality
resources will be developed and assessed in order to strengthen the resource. The resources will
be developed utilizing job competence profiles, reviews, training, etc.. A brief non-conclusive
description of each role is given below.

 Quality System Management Lead – Responsible for plans and procedures for an
overall effective QMS. Responsible for assessing the overall QMS health and
improvements to the system.
 Construction and Manufacturing Quality Professionals - Assist in developing quality
plans, inspection and test documents, templates, vendor audits and approvals.
 Data Management Lead – Responsible for managing the Data Management System
and conducting analysis to identify and manage trends of the key metrics.
 Quality Delivery Lead – Responsible for the execution/delivery of the QMS on specific
equipment, procurement and contractor quality, and inspector management.
 Project Quality Leads – Responsible for quality planning, delivery, assurance, and
improvements of quality in a specific project. In other words, the Project Quality Lead
is responsible for all phases of the cycle (Plan, Do, Check, Act) of project quality.
The Project Quality Lead role is discussed in greater detail in Section 5.6, Figure 5.
 Causal Learning Lead – Responsible for conducting learning investigations and
decimating results among the organization.

5.2 Templates
The QMS toolbox contains templates to facilitate best practices among the organization.
Templates will be used for the following quality activities. Templates are also discussed in
Section 5.6.1.

 Quality Plans

 Quality Roadmaps

 Inspection and Test Documents

 Vendor Contract Terms

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 12 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
  Inspection Reports

5.3 Inspector Management

The QMS contains various aspects of Inspector Management and is enabled by the Quality
Delivery Lead.

Inspector Management consists of:

 Inspector qualifications needed

 Sharing inspector resources among Shell divisions and projects

 Providing a central point of contact and conformity when applicable

 Using established contract rates and terms

 Using established best practices for consistency in results and performance

 Leveraging across Shell shared background knowledge

5.4 Vendor Management

The QMS contains various aspects of Vendor Management. Vendor management is enabled by
both the Quality Delivery Lead and the Construction/Manufacturing Quality Professionals.

Vendor Management consists of:

 Using established Quality contract terms with vendors

 Performing and standardizing on vendor audits

 Performing and maintaining vendor approval information in regards to quality

 Review of vendor QMS, test plans, and quality plans

5.5 Audits
The quality organization consists of resources to audit the system on several different levels to
monitor trends, systemic deficiencies and improvement opportunities. The QMS requires audits on
the following aspects of the business. An audit schedule and recommended practice will be
developed to consider risk-based requirements covering purchase order and project size.

 Discipline level audits

 Top 70 Project Level audits

 QMS level audits – Conducted annually to assess the performance of the QMS

 Vendors – At the time of Purchase order awarded and annually or bi-annually.

The Data Management Lead will ensure the audit data/results are stored and maintained within the
Quality Data Management System. The following procedure can be used as a guide during
audits: EP Business Audit and Review Services Guide, EP 00-2021.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 13 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
5.6 Procedures and Processes
5.6.1 Organization of Procedures
The QMS contains many procedures and processes to effectively execute quality within the
organization. The number of procedures and detail of the procedure increase as the processes
are applied into a project. This effect is illustrated by the triangle in Figure 4.

Figure 4: Cascading Tier of Quality Documentation – Detail and Volume increase

from top to bottom

The processes and procedures are currently being developed and streamlined within Shell Global
and locally. A formal list of QMS procedures will be developed and maintained over time.
Currently, the Appendix list of references contains the majority of the existing Shell procedures.
The QMS will first focus on developing the following procedures. The following list is not
encompassing.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 14 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Document/s: Description Summary and Purpose
Quality Road Maps Specific Instructions of what quality activities should be conducted during
each ORP Phase. Currently the define quality road map is developed.

Project Quality Plan Document used to plan the quality activities needed in the Select Phase to
Strategy Templates properly plan the Define Phase.

Project Quality Plan Document used to contain the recommended contents of a Project Quality
Templates Plan per ORP Phase.

Construction Site Quality Document used to contain the recommended contents of a quality plan at
Plans a Construction Site. Templates being developed per Contract Strategy
Type.

Contract Terms and Contains Contract Language to protect Shell regarding quality. Templates
Conditions being developed per Contract Strategy Type, Construction versus
Manufacturing, and encompassing FPD and TIV requirement templates.

Non-Conformance Definition of non-conformances and recommendations on how to manage

Procedures and record.

Equipment Inspection Equipment Inspection and Test Plan for specific standard equipment and
Test Plans and templates for recommended contents.
Templates

5.6.2 General Approval and Review Processes (Non-DCAF)

There are many documents and calculations that are generated in Shell that require a review and
approval. The DCAF contains the specific authority level of the person approving the controls.
There are other documents NOT required by DCAF Controls and the following serves as guidance
for general document approval and review which may or may not be a project deliverable.

For non-DCAF documents, ISO standards recommend that the originator of an original document
should not be the approver. In DCAF, certain Technical Authority levels have earned authority
beyond this general requirement to approve ones original work based on their capabilities, roles
and responsibilities to ensure proper review and technical soundness. As general guidance one
should consider who would be the best reviewer of a document. Consideration should be given to
if the reviewer should not be or needs to be directly involved with the project or document in order
to give an unbiased or well-informed review.

Non-project related documents generated by the discipline groups should be numbered, listed, and
maintained as required by EPTP-JA-5731-0001, IM Plan for EPT-P Communities in the US.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 15 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
5.6.3 Overarching Procedures and Links to Shell Procedures
The QMS and this document serves as the overarching procedure that encompasses all other
quality and assurance activities and is a central point of management and resource. This is
illustrated in Figure 5. An effective QMS applied to a project consists of elements of FPD, TIV,
and all aspects of DCAF. The QMS contains all of the processes centrally to simplify the system.
Simplifying the system allows projects to refer to the QMS to prevent re-stating or adding
procedures.

The quality department helps resource personnel to assure each of the processes are applied to
projects appropriately without overlap.

Figure 5 is explained in more detail in the following sections as each sub-process (DCAF, TIV,
FPD) is summarized. The subsystem links to quality are also described. Figure 6 is another
representation of the quality responsibilities including standalone activities and quality’s role in
DCAF, TIV and FPD.

Figure 5: Tier of Quality Procedures illustrating contents and overarching relationships

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 16 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Identify &
Select Define Execute Operate
Assess
(Pre FEED) (FEED)

QMS Responsibility Managed/Resourced

PQP PQP PQP

Vendor Qualification/Terms/Audits
Inspection and Test Plans
Quality Dept
Quality Resources &
Registers Prove &
Disciplines
Quality Risks Transfer to
Operations
Quality KPIs
Lessons Learned
Quality Audits

Verify TIF / TIV

Design Integrity
HSSE, Quality
Construction & Disciplines
Integrity
Operation Integrity

Verify DCAF or TQAF Disciplines/Quality

Verify Flawless OR&A / Quality

Figure 6: QMS Link to Processes illustrating Quality Roles and Responsibilities

(see below for Figure description)

5.6.3.1 Application to a Project

Figure 3 discussed in the beginning of section 5 illustrates the QMS recourses and tools that are
managed by the QMS that are available to support a project. Figure 6 goes into a little more detail
on how these are applied to a project, specifically their link to other Shell processes. For each
project a Project Quality Plan should be developed to document and communicate how each
aspect will be managed for the Project.

Figure 6: Illustration Description:

The Scope of the QMS and Quality Plans’ responsibility is indicated by the Orange Large box
containing the various quality activities. The quality department resources are responsible for
assuring the completion with significant discipline input of the items in the top tan box containing
the following:

 Vendor Qualifications, Terms and Conditions, Audits

 Inspection and Test Plans Input and Facilitation

 Quality Resource Planning and Allocation

 Quality Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 17 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
  Quality KPIs

 Lessons Learned

 Quality Audits (internal and external)

The degree of involvement from the quality department/organization changes depending on the
activity and project structure and funding. These activities for large projects are typically managed
by a quality department resource: Project Quality Lead and documented in the Project Quality
Plan.

The Project Quality Lead has the responsibility of overall project quality by enabling key quality
activities, Flawless Project Delivery, TIV, and DCAF. The Project Quality Lead serves as a focal
point/coordinator for understanding how to apply Shells quality procedures and helps interpret
what activities need to be done to meet Shell best practices. Although some of Shell quality
activities are conducted by Disciplines (DCAF or ITPs) or partially completed by other
organizations (HSSE, OR&A, Subsurface, Wells), the Project Quality Lead verifies these key
activities are being carried out per the projects needs in support of the Project Manager. The
Project Quality Lead also facilitates contractor prequalification quality evaluations and performs
audits of the quality processes.

There are interfaces between the Project structure with Disciplines, HSSE, OR&A, and the Shell
internal customers that are also enabled by the Project Quality Lead. For example, the approach
used to satisfy TIV on a project is developed and contained in the PQP written by the Project
Quality Lead. It includes the coordination of TIV performance standards, templates to use, review
from HSSE, expectations and bridging documentation with the regions (if necessary), and review
of the Performance Standard verification and assurance activities. Another example of how the
quality department enables TIV and FPD is bridging the gap that exists due to some Shell
organizations have applied TIV and FPD in different various degrees. The Project Quality Lead
coordinates the Shell customer expectations in meeting these standards.

The quality activities performed on a project are listed in Quality Road Maps (see Appendix C for
more detail). Templates exist for Project Quality Plans and Road Maps.

If a project does not have a Project Quality Lead assigned to the project, the quality organization
resources can support the project on an as needed basis to supplement the role of the Project
Quality Lead.

5.6.3.2 DCAF

DCAF stands for 'Discipline Controls and Assurance Framework'. This framework standardises the
controls/task necessary from all disciplines, in all Opportunity Realisation Process (ORP) phases,
across EP. DCAF provides clarity; which decisions and deliverables shall be formally quality
controlled /assured and who is authorised to do so.

DCAF comprises of Global controls as well as locally controls. The Globally controls are defined in
the following source: Discipline Controls and Assurance Framework (DCAF) - EP.03.ST.06, Rev
0, 5 Jan 2009. The local controls (SIEP-EPT-PW organization) are documented below.

Since the Global application of DCAF has limited the number of controls that are applied Globally,
local organizations have needed to add controls to properly manage the discipline tasks locally.
Therefore as a part of DCAF, Discipline Activity Plans are required for some disciplines to define
detailed activities that support controls when executing projects

The Discipline Activity Plans cover the control items that are considered to be local controls that
are not contained in the Global application of DCAF or the PCAP. Each discipline has developed
a list of controls within the SIEP-EPT-PW organization that should be considered on projects.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 18 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Some disciplines also are developing checklists that have been developed to verify if a certain
DCAF control item meets its requirements and can be approved.

The role of the quality department resources pertaining to DCAF is to facilitate, assure and verify
DCAF is applied and being conducted according to DCAF procedures. Quality department
resources can generate and help maintain the PCAP for projects.

5.6.3.3 TIV

The Technical Integrity Verification (TIV) is the process that ensures technical integrity from Select,
through Define and Execute phases and also maintains technical integrity after project handover to
the Operations Phase. It includes a process of selecting critical components as Safety Critical
Elements (SCEs) and Integrity Critical Elements (ICEs). It calls for the performance requirements
and criteria of the SCE/ICEs be documented in Performance Standards that lists the
performance/functional requirement along with how it shall be verified and also how it is assured
thru the process. The performance standards for the equipment require input from the disciplines,
HSSE and OR&A. The verification of the performance standards should aid creation of the
Inspection and Test Plans of the equipment (See Figure 6). For guidance refer to: EP Technical
Integrity Framework (TIF) - EP.03.ST.04, Rev 2, 26 May 2008.

The TIV process also needs to capture the following for safe operations.

 Real limits of safe operation are captured in the DCS and Operating Manuals (not just
normal operating range)

 Maintenance requirements including procedures, explicit pass/fail criteria and frequency,

are captured in the Maintenance Management System (SAP)

 Specific actions needed to preserve safety when critical equipment is not fully functional
(the MOPO), also captured in SAP

The role of quality in regards to TIV is to support, facilitate, and provide resources during the
development of the verification and assurance steps used to ensure the performance standards
are met. This consists of: providing inspectors, templates, input to or review of test and inspection
plans, and performing audits of the TIV process. Many of the Performance Standards are already
written. There are also lists containing the equipment that have been selected as Safety Critical
Elements.

5.6.3.4 Flawless Project Delivery

The objective of the Flawless Project Delivery (FPD) Programme is to ensure that stakeholder
expectations are met through a successful commissioning, start-up and first cycle of operation of
the facility.

FPD is a systematic approach used to identify, assess and address the risks during the design,
engineering, procurement and implementation phase of a project based on lesson learned on
previous projects. FPD serves as a system to fill in gaps in existing quality management systems
at Shell or suppliers/contractors. Elements of FPD can be applied where necessary to strengthen
quality processes.

For SIEP-EPT-PW, FPD is applied by the following:

 Determine which Q Areas are pertinent to the project

 Filter and review existing lessons learned database (FLAWS) for risks that may apply

 Incorporate mitigation methods to address risks selected

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 19 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
  Select 1 to 2 suggested KPIs for the pertinent Q Areas selected

 Utilize existing FPD checklists when developing Contract Terms, ITPs, and ITTs (see
Figure 7)

 Record Lessons Learned into the FLAWS database to be cycled back into the system for
the next project (See Figure 8)

Note that the FLAWS database is a useful management tool that can be used by each individual
project or discipline area to help collect Lessons Learned. For assistance regarding utilizing
FLAWS database contact Shell’s Knowledge Management Lead, Project Services.

The link to the FLAWS database on ORAKLE is as follows (EPT Projects homepage - OR&A -
Toolbox - Flaws & Lessons AWareness System (FLAWS) ) :

http://sww-orakle.shell.com/orakle/Homepage/Library/Tools/FLAWS/FLAWS-2_main.htm

The following are the Q areas covered by FPD:

Focused on Facility Impact on Schedule

Tightness Novelty and
Cleanliness Complexity
Integrity Inspection and Testing
Operability & Maintainability Experience
HSE in Transition Coinciding Events

Figure 7: Review Checklists aid in Mitigation of previous FLAWS

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 20 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
5.6.3.5 Project Assurance Plan (PAP)

At the top of the Tier in Figure 5, above the QMS is the Project Assurance Plan. The Project
Assurance Plan is the assurance plan for the Opportunity required by the OPMG. Also now
sometimes referred to the OAP, Opportunity Assurance Plan. This is at a tier layer higher than the
QMS and requires the following non-inclusive list: Project Execution Plans, Reservoir and Well
Surveillance Plans, Field Development Plans, Stakeholder Engagement Plans, Cost and
Investments, etc. .

The PAP should not be confused with the PCAP (Project Controls and Assurance Plan) from
DCAF.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 21 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
6 Quality Management System – Summary
The QMS in its simplest form is a system including a series of interrelated processes, tools, and
people whose aim is to work together to accomplish the product, project quality. The QMS
focuses on the whole rather than just the isolated parts and allows the organization to outperform
its individual silos by sharing best practices from within and optimize its resources and
opportunities.

The QMS is a continuous improvement process in reaching its goal of optimum product/project
performance. Each phase of the improvement process of Plan, Do, Check, and Act have
processes and resources allocated to ensure the system is sustainable within Shell.

The EPT-PW QMS is linked into the Shell’s global processes. As the global processes are
streamlined and updated, updates to the SIEP-EPT-PW QMS will also be made. The EPT-PW
QMS document will serve as a central point of reference for all quality related activities and
procedures for EPT-PW.

“Quality Assurance needs to be…simple enough

to follow and flexible enough to allow for
creativity’ …a tool that allows you to do more,
rather than a grim necessity to which you must
adhere..”

E. Welsch, Clarity or Clamity

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 22 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
 Appendix A: Definitions

Appendix A: Definitions

The following terms and expressions shall, unless the context otherwise requires, have the
meaning specifically assigned to them. Quality terms used in this document are consistent
with those given in ISO 9000 Quality Management Systems- Fundamentals and Vocabulary.

Term Definition
Planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate
Assurance
confidence that a product or service satisfies its requirements.

A third-party group or individual employed to perform a defined

Contractor
engineering, fabrication, and/or construction task for Shell.

The internal Shell or external customer, which is the recipient of

Customer
products designed or constructed for them.

The Deming Model is a quality process developed by Dr. W. Edwards

Deming: (1900-1993) who is considered to be the Father of Modern
Quality and was one of the most influential thinkers in the history of
Deming Model
American and international business in increasing quality and
simultaneously reducing costs (by reducing waste, rework, staff attrition
and litigation while increasing customer loyalty).

DEP Design Engineering Procedure

DEM Design Engineering Manual

FPD Flawless Project Delivery

A deficiency or failure, which if not remedied will manifest itself in lost

production, loss of HSE control or additional costs. Flaws are usually of
Flaw a technical nature and result from poor design, equipment specification
of lack of appropriate QA/testing during procurement & execution
activities. Flaws are recorded in the FLAWS database.

Flaws, Lessons Learned, AWarness System. A management database

FLAWS to capture, filter, mitigate, and search for Flaws and Lessons Learned
on a Project or Equipment.

Activities such as measuring, examining, testing, gauging one or more

Inspection characteristics of a product or services and comparing these with
specified requirements to determine conformity.

The document lists specific test and inspection types and inspection
Inspection and Test
points for specific pieces of equipment (purchased or constructed
Plan (ITP)
assets).

Integrity means the ability of the asset to perform its required function
Integrity
effectively and efficiently whilst safeguarding life and environment

Key Performance Indicator a selected metric to be monitored to assess

KPI
and analysis performance.

Non-conformance The non-fulfilment of a requirement

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 23 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
 Appendix A: Definitions

Term Definition

Product Goods and/or services provided by a company or vendor.

A document used to describe the planned work steps for an activity or

Project Execution
project. The PEP addresses schedule, quality management systems,
Plan (PEP)
resources, constraints, threats, etc.

This has been derived from the international standard on Quality ISO
9000:2000 which defines quality as the totality of features and
Quality
characteristics of a product or service that bear on its ability to satisfy
stated or implied needs (i.e. conformance to stated requirements).

A systematic independent, and documented process to determine

whether quality activities and related results comply with planned
Quality Audit
arrangements and whether these arrangements are implemented
effectively and are suitable to achieve objectives.

All those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide

adequate confidence that a product or service will satisfy given
requirements for quality. Quality -Vocabulary, ISO 9000: 2000
Quality Assurance
(QA)
e.g. system review and audit for compliance with the Quality
Management System and its enclosed work instructions and inspection
and test plans.

A document specifying which procedures and associated resources and

Quality Plan sequence of activities shall be applied by whom and when to a specific
project, product, process or contract.

The operational techniques and activities that ensure the product or

service meets the specified requirements for quality. Quality -
Vocabulary, ISO 9000:2000
Quality Control (QC)
e.g. surveillance, verification, inspection and testing, design/technical
reviews/checks.

The organizational structure, responsibilities, procedures, processes

Quality System
and resources for implementing quality management.

All activities of the overall management function that determine the

Quality Management quality policy, objectives and responsibilities, and implement them by
(QM) means such as quality planning, quality control, quality assurance and
quality improvement within the quality system.

The ability of an item to perform its required function over a stated

Reliability period of time that does not include scheduled down time. Reliability is
reduced by unscheduled down time only.

A document that furnishes evidence of activities performed and/or

Record
results achieved.

Shall Refers to a condition that is mandatory.

Refers to a condition that is suggested, recommended or preferred but

Should
not mandatory.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 24 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
 Appendix A: Definitions

Term Definition
Supplier A provider of equipment, materials, or services.

The technical integrity of a facility is achieved when, under specified

Technical Integrity operating conditions, there is no foreseeable risk of failure endangering
safety of personnel, environment or asset value.

Technical The document that prescribes the requirements with which a product (or
Specification service) has to conform. – ISO 9000:2000

Vendor A provider of equipment, materials, or services.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 25 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Appendix B: Referenced Documents

Appendix B: Referenced Documents

It is planned that this section of the document will contain Links to other processes needed to
execute quality functions. It is planned that this will be a single point of reference for the
required documents to execute quality. The following documents are organized by different
categories on how they relate to the QMS:

Category: Purpose of the Reference

Guidance Provided guidance to the development of the QMS and is referenced only

Related Documents Provides more information that is beyond just quality

Requirement Documents Provides the requirements that the QMS must adhere

Additional Resource Provides more data beyond what is presented within the document and
should be read if implementing or practicing a quality role

Guidance Documents
ISO 9001:2000 Quality Management Systems – Requirements

ISO 9000:2000 Quality Management Systems – Fundamentals and vocabulary

ISO 9004:2000 QMS Guidelines for Performance Improvements

ISO 10006:2003 Quality Management – Guidelines to Quality Management in Projects

ISO 10005:2005 Quality Management Systems – Guidelines for Quality Plans

ISO/TS 29001:2003 Petroleum, petrochemical and natural gas industries - Sector-specific

quality management systems - Requirements for product and service
supply organizations

ANSI/API Specification Specification for Quality Programs for the Petroleum, Petrochemical and
Q1 Natural Gas Industry

ISO 19011:2002 Guidelines for quality and/or environmental management systems audits

ISO/TR 1013:2001 Guidelines for quality management system documentation

ISO/TR 13881 Petroleum and natural gas industries - Classification and conformity
assessment of products, processes and services

DEP 82.00.10.30-GEN December 1995 with DEP Circulars 24/98 and 70/03 included (References
to ISO Standards are outdated.)

DEP 91.00.0010-GEN Gen - Sector-Specific Quality Management Systems - Requirements for

Product and Service Supply Organizations (Endorsement of ISO/TS
29001) - November 2006

Related Documents
EP 2000-5305 VAR Process

EP 2005-0180 HSE Auditing

EP 00-2021 EP Business Audit and Review Services Guide

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 26 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Appendix B: Referenced Documents

DEM 1 Design and Engineering Manual 1: Application of Technical Standards

DEM 2 Design and Engineering Manual 2: Process Safety Basic Requirements

QMS Requirement Documents

OPMG: EP 2001-5500 Opportunity and Project Management Guide - EP 2006 5500 Rev 0.0,
June 2006

EP 64 EP Global Engineering Standard, Process Management System Manual,

Doc. No.: EP.64.ST.0, Report EP 2009-1301 Issued: 26th January 2009,
Doc ID: EP200901249146

EP 65 Execute Operations Readiness and Assurance Activities, Doc. No.:

EP.64.ST.01 Report EP 2009-1301 Issued: 26th January 2009 Doc ID:
EP200901249146

EP 63 EP Global Engineering Standard, Design, Drill, Modify, Service & Abandon

Wells, Doc. No.: EP.64.ST.0, Report EP 2009-1301 Issued: 26th January
2009, Doc ID: EP200901249146

Project Guide 13 TBD

Project Standard 13 TBD

Additional Resource Documents

DEP 82.00.10.00-GEN Project Quality Assurance (for review of general principles)

TIF EP.03.ST.04 EP Technical Integrity Framework (TIF), Rev 2, 26 May 2008

TIV DEP 80.80.00.15 EPE Guidance for the Selection of Safety Critical Elements, March 2005

DCAF EP.03.ST.06 Discipline Controls and Assurance Framework (DCAF), Rev 0, 5 Jan 2009

EPTP-JA-5731-0001 Information Management (IM) Plan for EPT-P Communities in the US.

FLAWLESS ORAKLE Link - http://sww-orakle.shell.com/orakle/homepage.htm

Helpful Link: Below is a link to all of EP Global Business Control Documents (BCD), which contains all
of the approved policies, procedures, and standards within EP. This link is maintained and
updated on a regular basis and can be filtered.

http://knowledge.europe.shell.com/GetDoc?
dataid=29145091&instance=teamsiep&guest=true&action=fetch

It can also be found at the BMS Site:

http://sww.shell.com/ep/finance/bms/

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 27 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
 Appendix C: Quality Road Map

Appendix C: Quality Road Map

The purpose of Quality Roadmaps is to clearly layout the recommended quality actions on a
project. Purpose is to cleanly layout responsibilities and actions needed for project quality in
one location. The roadmaps meet Global Process 64, Project Std and Project Guide 13, ISO,
DEP 82.00.00.10. Currently the roadmap for Define phase is developed. Additional
Roadmaps will be developed and shared through a quality toolbox link.

Figure C-1: Example road map to give general idea of layout (Not intended to be readable)

Spreadsheet contains:
 Quality Activities,
 Roles and Responsibilities (Responsible, Verification, Approval)
 Status
 Deliverable of the Activity
 Best Practice/Template to use for each activity
 Estimated man hours per activity
 Schedule or Frequency of the Activity
 Location for User Notes per Activity
 Reference to which Shell Procedure or Requirement driving the activity (DCAF, PQP, PG13, OPMG etc..)

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 28 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Appendix D: Quality Policy

Appendix D: Quality Policy

The following is the Shell EP Projects Quality Policy Statement and Objectives. This applies
to all projects and organizations within EP. The policy and objectives should be referenced
but not contained in individual equipment or project quality plans. Individual quality objectives
should be specific to the equipment or project.

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 29 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Appendix D: Quality Policy

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 30 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Appendix E: EPT-PW Quality Assessment Pilot

Appendix E: EPT-PW Quality Assessment Pilot – Case Study

In 2007-2008 EPT-PW performed an assessment of the Quality Management Systems in place in

EPT-PW. The assessment found that the processes within EPT-PW mimic the process maturity
illustrated by Figure A-1. The results of the assessment are summarized as:

 No documented QMS over EPT-PW (silo management systems were in place)

 Changes in the Industry

o Personnel resource movements and new suppliers have caused more quality
incidents and risks

o More significant and relevant quality

“Quality Management has just become too
incidents have occurred in the important to leave to chance.”
Industry raising the awareness
Philip Crosby
 Methods used to manage quality within
Deepwater are varied and inconsistent and best practices are in place in silos that should
be shared to benefit the whole organization

 No Metrics are in place to assess project quality or quality as a whole

 Quality products and projects are highly dependent on individuals and run the risk of low
sustainability. Quality belonged to
individual projects and usually “To find out how to improve productivity,
quality, and performance – ask the people who
originated by the previous project
do the work.”
versus a managed system.
Harvard Business Review
 Processes, tools and templates can be
put in place to facilitate quality
functions in projects with the greatest need being in the Execute phase of projects

 Terminology regarding quality is greatly misused or not understood

The main focus of the EPT-PW team is to maintain a Global consistency while resolving the above
issues during the Pilot Assessment and deliver according to the vision statement.

SIEP-PW QMS Evolution and Development Approach

As the QMS is developed, one goal is to streamline processes locally and globally. Currently there
are over 30 processes in place in Shell that pertain to quality. It is difficult to know how these
interlink with one another and which ones apply. Initially this document is put into place as a
starting point for EPT-PW. The short-term goal is to have clear direction of how all the Global
processes fit within another and provide clear direction on managing quality in projects. As the
Shell Quality organization streamlines these processes, this document will be updated to reflect
these improvements.

A challenge in Shell can be knowing the

“Total Quality Management is not a destination
history of a document or process and whether but a journey toward improvement.”
or not it has been replaced, superseded,
obsoleted or even lost in the system. As an V. Daniel Hunt
effort to help improve the sustainability of the
Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 31 of 32
Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03
Appendix E: EPT-PW Quality Assessment Pilot

new QMS, the Background section of this document is planned to be maintained so that in years to
come the application and relevance to readers will be understood and up to date.

Past Quality Focus Areas

In 2006-2008 there have been several assessments or evaluations of Quality
Management in Shell globally and locally. In Shell’s history there have been well-
established processes in the later phases of the ORP process but in earlier phases, the
processes became more individual or department managed.

Figure A-1 below graphically illustrates the current level of control against key Quality
activities that impact Project Delivery Globally and Locally in EPT.

Figure A-1

Quality Management System, SIEP EPT-PWS-Q Page 32 of 32

Document Number: EPT-PD-QA-3010
Revision: 03