Discipline Delivery Plans

Discipline Delivery Plans (DDPs) support Capital Projects delivering and operating with an optimal engineering scope from a life-cycle value and cost perspective. This is achieved by:

Capital Projects being competitively scoped, with early input from the Discipline Engineering and other functions
The engineering scope being optimally matured and fully integrated from a system engineering perspective with the other disciplines
Leveraging new technology, where required, with robust risk management via the development release process

DDPs are required for those disciplines that are in the scope of a Capital Project, encompassing engineering disciplines as well as the wider functions listed below:

Discipline Engineering
Development, Subsurface & Wells
HSSE
IM/IT
ORCSU
Project Services

Each DDP summarises the discipline contribution, both for delivery (including quality control) and provision of assurance for which the discipline is accountable, as well as for those activities in which the discipline provides support. As such, each DDP shall be used as the handshake between the project and the engineering disciplines. It may also form the basis for a Cost-Time-Resource (CTR) estimate.

DDP Archetypes

A DDP archetype stipulates the discipline controls per ORP phase that are to be considered based on scope and risk by the project team in consultation with the Engineering Manager or respective Discipline Lead. The archetype is intended to be scalable and aligned with the project drivers and risks.

The Global Discipline Head (GDH) owns the archetype and is therefore responsible for:

limiting the listing to discipline controls
maintaining the archetype to reflect the latest practice and requirements of the discipline
endorsing proposed changes to the listing

The discipline’s controls shall be structured in the following three categories:

1. Control Points	2. Critical Tasks	3. Activities
Multi-disciplinary	Discipline specific or critical input to other disciplines	Single discipline requirements
Listed in PCAP	Subject to quality control	Subject to quality control by a discipline representative
Subject to quality control	Subject to quality assurance by a Technical Authority designated in the DDP
Subject to quality assurance by a Technical Authority (either in an ATA or RTA role) designated in the PCAP

For Category 1 Control Points, these are defined in the PCAP Global Control Point list endorsed by the DCAF Owner. All Disciplines have an important role to play in the assurance as defined in the PCAP and this is further detailed in the relevant DDPs. Discipline specific guidance on Control Points is included in the relevant Discipline Guides.

For Category 2 Critical Tasks, these can relate to input to (not assurance of) PCAP Control Points, but also assurance of single discipline risks that are not included in PCAP Control Points.

For Category 3 Activities, these relate to the discipline required studies, reports and other deliverables that are not included in PCAP Control Points.

Risk and Outcome

The discipline’s controls shall provide a clear definition of:

Risk: each control is designed to mitigate a risk(s), which are defined in accordance with PMF Guide to Risk Management
Outcome: each control is mapped to one of the six Project Standard outcomes for Capital Projects

Engineering Outcomes

The controls in the DDP are designed to mitigate risks to the following engineering outcomes for capital projects, which are aligned with the PMF project standard outcomes:

ES1 Deliver Asset Integrity Including Process Safety: Goal Zero aims to have an HSSE & SP performance that the project can be proud of and reflects Shell’s shared core values of honesty, integrity and respect for people. Discipline engineers pursue Goal Zero and Respect for People relentlessly, by driving process safety in their designs, keeping people and assets secure, lessening impacts on communities and the environment, taking care of people’s health and safety.

ES2 Deliver Integrated Design: Delivery of an integrated design is key to realising the project business case value for Shell. This includes the early identification, understanding and alignment on design drivers, risk and uncertainty management across disciplines, making quality decisions and leveraging lessons learned and best practices.

ES3 Competitive Design Basis: Design bases shall be competitive with minimum technical scope and requirements. Competitive means that the technical solution cannot be more expensive or take longer to complete than that of analogue projects without transparent trade-off justification.

ES4 Efficient Fabrication and Construction: Efficient fabrication and construction during the execute phase of a project are dependent on maintaining an Execute mind set from the Assess phase until completion of the project – “starting early with the end in mind”. Engineering contributions to efficient fabrication and construction include designing for execution, development of realistic costs and schedules, technical evaluation of contractors / suppliers and management of quality.

ES5 Deliver Robust Operability: Robust operability, in line with the production promise, is key to successfully delivering value from opportunities to Shell. Specifically, the asset’s performance should meet the agreed safety, reliability, availability, OPEX and production attainment targets. Engineering contributions to robust operability include designing for operability, selection of materials and equipment, sparing philosophy, selection of instrumentation and controls and management of quality.

Creation and delivery of DDPs

At the start of each ORP phase (from Assess) the Engineering Manager (or respective Discipline Lead) creates and agrees with the technical lead the DDP in scope of the Capital Project. The Engineering Manager (or respective Discipline Lead) also oversees the delivery of the DDP. Additional guidance on DDP creation is included in the Discipline Guides.

For the creation of an engineering DDP, an archetype shall be downloaded from the Discipline DDP Guides section below to ensure well-tailored DDPs are developed from the latest valid list of relevant discipline’s contributions.

DDP Deviation

A deviation is only applicable to Control Points and Discipline Critical Tasks, where the proposed DDP is deferring a discipline contribution to the next ORP phase. A discipline TA approval (minimum TA2) is required for each deviation.

Discipline DDP Guides

Civil, Offshore and Pipelines (COP)

Instrumentation, Controls and Electrical (ICE)

Mechanical Engineering

Quality Engineering

Operations Readiness CSU

OR CSU DDP

Information Management and Information Technology

IT/IM DDP and guide

Project Services

PS DDP

HSSE & SP

HSSE Activity Plan

Wells

GWDP
WOVR

How to develop a DDP for a specific project (risk scaling)

Before a discipline can start to prepare a project specific DDP the project specific PCAP should be agreed.

Once the project PCAP is agreed discipline specific deliverables (DDPs) shall be created for projects at the start of each ORP phase. The Engineering Manager, or respective Discipline Leads, shall convene a project DDP creation session(s), involving relevant Project Engineers, Discipline TAs, and, if needed, SMEs or PTEs. The DDP Archetype shall be reviewed and the controls within the archetype scaled based on the project phase, scope and risk profile. Three categories of control exist: Control Points, Discipline Critical Tasks and Discipline Activities, which are defined in the Engineering Standard. The Control Points agreed at the prior PCAP creation session form the basis of the project DDP. Discipline Critical Tasks and Discipline Activities are then scaled, based on project risks and scope.