Integrated activity planning reduces conflicts and steadies multi-field execution
A Norway offshore operator introduced a 90/30/7 planning rhythm with stage gates and data hub links to coordinate work across fields and improve shutdown and resource discipline.
Starting point
As Norway operations scaled from single asset focus to managing multi-field portfolio, activity planning became more complex. Drilling, maintenance, projects, and logistics each ran their own plans, and conflicts between work scopes were increasingly common.
Without a single integrated plan or clear change control, shutdown windows tended to lengthen, shared resources clashed, and production stability was harder to protect. Bed capacity and materials readiness were not always aligned with planned work, which created last minute changes, frustration offshore, and avoidable pressure on people on board.
Approach
The operator engaged a planning and operating model team that included Bhuvan Maingi, now leading Strathen Group, to design an Integrated Activity Planning (IAP) approach suited to multi field operations. The work began with a review of how each function planned drilling campaigns, maintenance, projects, and logistics, and how those plans did or did not come together at asset and portfolio level.
From this baseline, the team set a 90/30/7 rhythm for planning. Functional 90 day plans were required to roll into a single integrated plan across fields. The first 30 days of that plan were treated as firm, with formal change control. Weekly, seven day plans then drove execution on the ground. This cadence gave enough look ahead for coordination without creating a plan so rigid that it could not adapt.
Stage gates were embedded into the planning process. Key elements such as scope, dates, people on board, materials, and permits had to be confirmed before activities moved forward. If late changes were needed, they were logged as reason coded break ins that required leadership approval. This created transparency about why work was moved or added, and at what cost to the rest of the plan.
The integrated plan was tied directly into the consolidated data hub and onshore dashboards. Plan quality and compliance could be seen alongside operational metrics, which made it easier to connect planning decisions to production and shutdown performance. Dashboards showed upcoming work, readiness checks, and the impact of changes across assets and shared resources.
Bed capacity, logistics, and materials readiness were brought into the same picture. Planning now included views of bed usage across fields, vessel and helicopter schedules, and key material deliveries. This allowed the operator to avoid clashes, reduce idle time, and shorten shutdown windows by making sure that required people and materials were in place before work started.
Governance completed the model. A regular IAP forum brought together operations, maintenance, projects, logistics, and planning leads to review the integrated plan, resolve conflicts, and oversee change control. Compliance scorecards showed how often activities met stage gate criteria, how many break ins occurred, and which functions or assets were driving rework. Templates, RACIs, and workflows were documented so the new rhythm could run as business as usual, not as a one time exercise.
Moving to IAP was less about a new tool and more about a 90/30/7 rhythm, clear stage gates, and visible change control that everyone had to respect.
Outcome
The new Integrated Activity Planning model reduced conflicts across assets and functions. By forcing 90-day functional plans into a single integrated view, clashes between drilling, maintenance, projects, and logistics were identified and resolved earlier. Shared resources were used more deliberately, and bed capacity was planned with a portfolio view instead of asset by asset.
Shutdowns became shorter and more predictable. Sequencing improved because activities could only enter the firm 30-day window once scope, people, materials, and permits had passed stage gates. Last minute changes did not disappear, but they became exceptions that required reason codes and leadership sign off. This allowed operations to protect critical work and understand the tradeoffs behind each break in.
Execution compliance increased as teams adjusted to a single plan and transparent change control. The link to the data hub and dashboards meant leaders could see not only whether activities were completed, but also how plan quality and compliance correlated with production stability and shutdown performance. This created a reinforcing loop between planning behavior and operational outcomes.
The IAP forum and compliance scorecards provided a structured way to manage the inevitable tensions between functions and assets. Issues were escalated and resolved in a regular setting, rather than through ad hoc negotiations close to execution. Over time, the integrated planning rhythm became a core part of how Norway operations ran multi field activity, not a side project.
For multi field operations, the real leverage often lies in a disciplined planning rhythm and change control, not in more detailed plans for each individual asset.
This work now informs how Strathen Group designs integrated planning for asset intensive clients. Start with a simple, firm cadence, connect plans to real data and readiness, and build governance that makes a single plan the path of least resistance.
