See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266669848

Building Technical Excellence: E&P Competency Development in India

Article · January 2011

DOI: 10.2523/15177-MS

CITATIONS READS

3 2,163

5 authors, including:

Stuart D Burley John Connor

Keele University Open University Malaysia
144 PUBLICATIONS 3,130 CITATIONS 2 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Stuart D Burley on 24 July 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

IPTC 15177

Building Technical Excellence: E&P Competency Development in India

Kenneth C. Ogle, IHRDC, Boston USA; Stuart D Burley, Cairn India Ltd, Gurgaon, India and The University of
Keele, Department of Earth Sciences, UK; Taruna Magan and Nirmal Kumar Senapati, Cairn India Ltd; John
Connor, IHRDC.
Copyright 2011, International Petroleum Technology Conference

This paper was prepared for presentation at the International Petroleum Technology Conference held in Bangkok, Thailand, 15–17 November 2011.

This paper was selected for presentation by an IPTC Programme Committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as
presented, have not been reviewed by the International Petroleum Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, as presented, does not necessarily
reflect any position of the International Petroleum Technology Conference, its officers, or members. Papers presented at IPTC are subject to publication review by Sponsor Society
Committees of IPTC. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper for commercial purposes without the written consent of the International Petroleum Technology
Conference is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous
acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper was presented. Write Librarian, IPTC, P.O. Box 833836, Richardson, TX 75083-3836, U.S.A., fax +1-972-952-9435

Abstract
Developing workforce competency is a four-step process of (1) establishing actual job requirements in the context of
organisational structure, (2) assessing and verifying the individual’s current competencies against these job requirements, (3)
identifying gaps between the current and required levels of competency and (4) generating and executing an Individual
Development Plan that closes these gaps. This paper describes the application and implementation of this process for the
petrotechnical staff of Cairn India Limited (CIL), through the development of an online Competency Management System
for 154 professionals in Geosciences, Reservoir and Petroleum Engineering, Geotechnical IT and Technical Support
positions (the “PetroTech” professionals population).

The project objectives were to develop job standards and competency models for petrotechnical personnel, and to identify
training needs and provide training solutions for each individual. The methodology involved reviewing existing job
descriptions, interviewing jobholders and their supervisors, developing competency statements and job level requirements for
each position, and conducting a three-step assessment and verification process to identify skill gaps. The verified assessments
were then matched to available training resources so that an Individual Development Plan could be generated for each
employee.

All of this work was achieved through a web-based Competency Management System (CMS), which also provided a full set
of data analysis and reporting capabilities. In both the initial project rollout that began in 2008 and a follow-up reassessment
conducted in 2010, the CMS identified specific focus areas for competency development among work groups, disciplines and
individuals. Results underscored the importance of updating the CMS on a regular basis, and provided information on where
to focus training priorities on a departmental basis.

The subsequent match of training resources to identified skill gaps has provided a way forward in building a competent
geotechnical workforce that meets or exceeds worldwide industry standards.

Introduction
The drive towards international standards of performance, an increasing nationalisation of staff, aging employee
demographics, a shrinking workforce and associated problems of recruitment and retention have caused a major shift in how
the oil and gas industry trains and develops its global workforce. The challenges of managing technical staff development
are particularly prominent in the Indian oil and gas industry, where some 40 percent of the workforce is of age 50 or above,
wages increased 155 percent between 2004 and 2009 despite a stable employee base, and the gap between technical
personnel supply and demand is projected to reach 30 percent by 2020 (Sengupta et al, 2010). Moreover, growth in the India
E&P sector has resulted in a recent influx of many new graduates, with the requirement for technical development.

Competency-based development is a significant part of this requirement in training and development, and has been adopted
in one form or another by a number of companies and industry organisations. The SPE has established its own set of
competency matrices as “guidelines used in determining the minimum aptitude levels for petroleum engineers and to
establish future industry standards” and to help petroleum engineers “discover areas where [they] need development, seek
educational opportunities or project experience and gain relevant skills.”
2 IPTC 15177

In applying these principles, organisations have to address such issues as how to define competency standards for a given job,
how to accurately and objectively assess jobholders against these standards and how to close identified “skill gaps” in a way
that fosters employee development and makes the best use of available training resources. They also have to consider the
practical aspects of recording, managing and reporting data from large numbers of employees, handling changes in job
descriptions and work assignments, and making all of this information available timely and relevant at all level of the
organisation, from senior managers to team leaders to individual employees.

Organisations typically address such issues using a competency management system designed to track and manage the
development of individuals throughout their careers. The online Competency Management System (CMS Online) described
in this case study combines job description, competency assessment and verification, training resource recommendation, and
recording, reporting and tracking capabilities into one integrated, web-based platform.

Cairn India Limited (CIL) is one of the largest independent oil and gas exploration and production companies in India, with a
working interest in nine blocks in India and one block in Sri Lanka. Prior to the project described in this case study, CIL
training resources, like those of many other organisations, were built around courses offered by outside providers and
mentoring of junior engineers and geoscientists by senior colleagues.

The objective of the project was to enable CIL to better plan, evaluate and manage the professional development of its
geotechnical staff by (1) defining the actual job requirements for each position within the project scope, (2) assessing and
verifying the individual’s current competencies against those job requirements, (3) identifying gaps between the current and
required levels of competency and (4) generating and executing Individual Development Plans to close these gaps. It should
be emphasised that this project was not related to performance or salary reviews, but was exclusively focused on developing
employee competency and meeting the company’s work requirements.

The competency development project began in June 2008, and was completed in February 2009 with the development and
electronic delivery of 50 Job Competency Models and assessments for 145 employees in four work areas: Geosciences
(Geology, Geophysics and Petrophysics), Reservoir Engineering, Petroleum Engineering and Production Technology, and
Drilling Engineering and Operations. A project follow-up in 2010 included the addition of a newly formed Geotechnical
Solutions and Data Management Group, for a total of 154 employee assessments.

Background
Initial adoption of competency-based training began in the early 1980s when projects to build career development guides for
entry-level technical specialists were taken up by US independents. Companies such as Mobil (like many companies today)
faced a bimodal age distribution of engineers: a sizeable group of experienced personnel nearing retirement and a large pool
of younger, new or recent hires, but a shortage of fully-qualified, mid-level engineers. To close this gap, competency-based
programs were developed to identify “top performers” and accelerate their training in a focused manner.

At that time, the term “competency” referred more or less exclusively to specific behaviours associated with outstanding
performance. Competencies were generic, measureable, and reflected in critical behaviours. Boyatzis (1982), in his landmark
book The Competent Manager, reflected this prevailing view with a list of competencies that included Concern with impact,
Proactivity and Conceptualisation. The behaviours associated with Conceptualisation, for example, were:
• Uses inductive reasoning to identify patterns and relationships
• Able to create models and symbols to communicate these concepts
• Uses synthetic and creative thinking to develop further ideas and solutions

Good practice in competence management distinguishes between generic competencies and the specific tasks carried out by a
jobholder. As the idea of competency-based training began to take hold among companies and governments worldwide,
several distinct approaches emerged. Markus et. al (2005) grouped these approaches into three basic categories: behavioural
repertoires (the original definition), educational (training) standards, and organisational competencies.

An example of educational standards would be NVQs or National Vocational Qualifications, which have been a very
significant part of the UK training and development landscape since 1986. NVQs in the UK are now progressively being
replaced with QCF (Qualifications and Credit Framework) awards, certificates and diplomas. In the oil and gas sector, the
relevant entity that administers NVQ has been the Offshore Petroleum Industry Training Organization (OPITO).

Organisational competencies, meanwhile, were defined by Hamel and Prahalad (1989) as the “collective learning” of the
organisation, including “Core Competencies” and “Capabilities.”
IPTC 15177 3

Until the competency wave hit the oil and gas industry, rarely if ever, did the use of competences refer to technical skills. In
fact, competency “purists” outside the petroleum industry would have difficulty in the way we use the term competency. Oil
and gas have basically developed their own conventions in describing and using competences.

Beginning in the late 1990s, the International Human Resources Development Corporation (IHRDC) undertook several
competency-based training programs based on the OPITO approach, which involved assessments of jobholders against a list
of competencies, described as “the combination of awareness, knowledge, skills and attitude that an individual must
demonstrate in order to meet the performance standards required of his or her job.” This is the definition upon which this case
study is based, and the foundation for the Competency Management System described here.

Process Overview
The Competency Development process used in this project involves (1) validating or, if necessary, revising or generating Job
Descriptions, (2) building a Competency Model, (3) assessing each employee against his or her Competency Model and
identifying “skill gaps,” or areas in which the current competency levels do not meet the standards require by the job, and (4)
generating and executing an Individual Development Plan that closes these gaps.
A Competency Model is a categorized list of the skills, knowledge and aptitudes required of each job title according to
international standards. The first step in building a Competency Model is to precisely and accurately define the roles, tasks
and responsibilities for a given job title. This involves a careful study of organisational charts and career ladders, a review of
existing Job Descriptions (if any) and validation or revision of the Job Descriptions based on interviews with the jobholders.
Once the Job Description is finalised and entered into the CMS (Figure 1), the roles, tasks and responsibilities that it
describes are matched with the skills, knowledge and aptitudes (i.e., the competencies) needed to carry them out.

Figure 1: Job Description excerpt

This matchup, or Competency Model, is made up of Competency Units that define specific core, supporting and behavioural
competencies. A typical Competency Model for an E&P technical specialist might consist of between 40 and 60 of these
Competency Units, although this range can vary according to specific job requirements. Figure 2 shows a partial listing of
Competency Units for a Lead Reservoir Engineer Competency Model developed from the Job Description of Figure 1.
4 IPTC 15177

Figure 2: Competency Model, Lead Reservoir Engineer

Each Competency Unit takes the form of a General Statement and four Job Level Requirements, which define the level of
competency. Table 1 outlines the general form of these Job Level Requirements.

Table 1: CMS Job Level Requirements.

Level 1 Level 2
Awareness Basic Application
Understand basic Have broad knowledge of
concepts and principles. theoretical principles and
Have general knowledge practical applications.
of technical subjects, Participate in designing field
procedures and their applications.
applications. Participate in routine
implementation of field
applications.
Level 3
Skilled Application
Have detailed knowledge of
principles and applications.
Be able to work without
supervision.
Share and transfer information,
best practices and lessons
learned.
Serve as mentor and coach for
junior employees.
Level 4
Mastery
Have full understanding of
theoretical principles and
practices.
Have detailed knowledge of
industry standards, trends
and best practices.
Design, develop and transfer
knowledge. Lead networks,
mentors and coaches.

Some sample verbs that describe these job level requirements, based on Bloom’s Taxonomy, would include the following:
• Level 1: define, label, list, name
• Level 1 or Level 2: describe, explain, identify, locate
• Level 2 or Level 3: apply, demonstrate, operate, use
• Level 3 or Level 4: analyze, calculate, compare, differentiate
• Level 4: design, manage, plan, propose, appraise, assess, justify, evaluate

Thus, the first Competency Unit from Figure 2, “Reservoirs,” would appear as shown in Table 2.
IPTC 15177 5

Table 2: “Reservoirs” Competency Unit.

General Statement: Have an in depth knowledge of different types of reservoirs and how they are formed.
Level 1 Level 2
Awareness Basic Application
• Describe • Be able to characterize
lithostratigraphic reservoirs based on
sections in cores and interpretations of
outcrops based on sedimentological and
sedimentary rock type structural models.
classification. • Build and interpret
• Use well log isopach and net-to-
interpretations to gross sand maps.
generate • Characterize reservoir
lithostratigraphic quality based on
descriptions and sedimentological and
identify facies. petrophysical rock
• Determine reservoir properties.
rock quality using core • Be able to interpret
sampling techniques. diagenetic processes in
• Recognize basic sediments and construct
techniques for paragenetic sequences
processing and using textural
validating reservoir information from a
data. variety of sources.
• Be able to integrate
diagenetic events with
structural history.
Level 3 Level 4
Skilled Application Mastery
• Interpret reservoir maps • Participate in integrated
and integrate them with reservoir studies and
seismic interpretations recommend new
to predict reservoir size, strategies for optimizing
geometry and trends. reservoir models.
• Use regional geology • Know the current state
concepts and integrate of the art in reservoir
them with seismic data characterization and
to predict reservoir apply new techniques to
trends. improve results.
• Create conceptual • Develop and foster
geological models from networks outside of
diverse data sources in Cairn to access
preparation for specialists experienced
constructing geocellular in various types of
models. reservoirs.
• Visualize potential
application of the
adequate reservoir
geological models to
enhance reservoir
production.
• Lead mentors and
coaches. Adopt a
QA/QC role wherever
necessary and
appropriate..

In this case, the Job Level Requirement is Level 1, or “Awareness,” as indicated by the shading.

Competency Assessment takes place in three stages:

1. Controlled Self-Assessments, in which employee assess themselves against each listed statement in each
Competency Unit in their respective Competency Models, based on the assigned Job Level Requirements and under
the guidance of an outside facilitator.
2. Supervisor Assessments, in which a designated supervisor or team leader assesses his or her assigned employees
according to the same Competency Model and Job Level Requirements.
3. Verification, in which an outside facilitator or a supervisor other than the employee’s supervisor reviews the Self-
Assessments and Supervisor Assessments to validate the results and resolve any inconsistencies.
In the CMS, skill gaps for any given Competency Unit are defined as shown in Table 3.

Table 3: Skill Gap Categories and Definitions

Category Definition* Colour Code
Meets Job Level Requirements (FA – JLR) ≥ 0
Needs Improvement 0 > (FA – JLR) ≥ -1
Focus Area (FA – JLR) < -1
* Where FA = verified Final Assessment score for the Competency Unit
(minimum = 0, maximum = 4), and JLR = Job Level Requirement for the
Competency Unit (minimum = 0, maximum = 4).

Thus:
• If the Final Assessment score for a given Competency Unit meets or exceeds the JLR (e.g., FA = 3.2, JLR =3), the
employee meets the requirements for his or her job; no further action is needed for the current job title.
• If the Final Assessment score is below but still within one level of the JLR (e.g., FA = 2.2, JLR =3), that
Competency Unit is indicated as “Needs Improvement,” and should be considered a training or development
priority.
6 IPTC 15177

• If the Final Assessment score is more than one level below the JLR (e.g., FA = 1.2, JLR =3), this is considered a
Focus Area and a potential high development priority.

The final step in the Competency Development Process is to generate and implement Individual Development Plans (IDPs)
to close the identified skill gaps. In the CMS, this involves first identifying training resources from within the company and
from outside providers, entering them into the system, and then matching them with the appropriate Competency
Requirements and Job Level Requirements. These training resources may consist of e-Learning, classroom training, focused
on-the-job training (OJT), participation in conferences or applied technology workshops—in short, anything that serves to
close a skill gap.

Once this is done, the system generates an IDP (Figure 3) for each employee compiling a list of his or her skill gaps,
associating them with the available training or development resources, and prioritizing the recommended training according
to the magnitude or critical nature of the skill gap. The IDP can then be reviewed by the employee and his or her supervisor,
and approved or modified as needed.

Figure 3: IDP Excerpt

The CMS results, including assessment results, skill gap reports and individual development plans, can be reviewed on an
individual basis, by job title, by section or department, or for the whole company to give multiple level overviews of
workforce competency and to aid in planning and allocation of training resources.

CMS Development and Project Methodology

When the competency development project was announced, there was significant curiosity and more than a little
apprehension among the staff as to exactly what the company’s management was trying to accomplish through this process.
To address these questions and concerns, CIL management and IHRDC issued several initial communications to explain the
process, and conducted a series of presentations and Q&A sessions at the company’s main office to introduce the project and
clarify its objectives.

After a careful study of the E&P organization charts and a review of existing Job Descriptions, a list of job titles was
generated for the dual purpose of setting up personnel interviews and coinciding with the company’s efforts to standardise a
functional career ladder for technical and technical managerial tracks. This list originally consisted of 24 job titles, but was
gradually expanded to 50 as the division of tasks and responsibilities among various jobholders became clearer.

Job Description Interviews

Following the introductory meetings, personal interviews were scheduled to validate existing E&P Job Descriptions, provide
input for generating Job Descriptions where none currently existed, and ensure that these Job Descriptions reflected each
employee’s actual tasks and responsibilities. Forty-six interviews were conducted between 30 June and 4 July 2008. The
interviewees were selected to represent a broad cross-section of Geotechnical personnel based on range of experience,
technical background and areas of responsibility.

Each interviewee spent between 40 minutes to one hour or more discussing his or her job in the context of asset or project
team objectives, day-to-day routines, specific tasks and responsibilities, role within the asset or project team, internal and
IPTC 15177 7

external relationships, any budgetary supervisory or mentoring responsibilities, and the qualifications they felt were
important with respect to academic background, work experience, skills, knowledge and attitudes. In many cases, employees
shared instances of projects they had worked on and training they had received as examples of what they felt was important
in being able to carry out the duties of their positions. Such discussions provided valuable insights for generating the CMS
Job Descriptions. These Job Descriptions were entered into the CMS following client review and approval.

Competency Model Building

Using the information from the departmental organisation charts and newly approved Job Descriptions, a customised
Competency Model was developed for each job title.

Following review and validation of job descriptions, each Job Title was developed into a customized competency model
describing the identified knowledge, skills and abilities required to perform the job at the required level (Awareness; Basic
Application; Skillful Application or Mastery).Depending on the individual job titles, the competency models included
anywhere from 30 to 63 Competency Units (average of 51 CUs per job title), with each unit consisting of statements for the
four Job Level Requirements.

Competency Assessment
Competency assessments were preceded by a series of training sessions for employees and supervisors, in which IHRDC
facilitators reinforced the objectives of the exercise, answered questions about the process, clarified any areas of confusion
and reviewed the results as they were entered into the CMS.

Each employee was given access to the Competency Model for their Job Title and asked to rank, in increments of 20 percent
on a 100-percent scale, the degrees to which they felt that they met the Job Level Requirements for each competency area.
Seventeen supervisory personnel were designated as Assessors for this project and assigned to employees in their respective
Departments. The Assessors were asked to go to the CMS and complete Supervisor Assessments for each of their Team
Members, using the same Competency Models. The results were then compared with those of the Self-Assessments to
identify any discrepancies and determine the need for third-party verification. Supervisor Assessments were completed for
143 of the 145 employees in the target group.

Verification
The CMS verification feature (Figure 4) enables (1) side-by-side comparison of the Employee and Supervisor assessments,
(2) identification and reconciling of inconsistencies, (3) elimination of biases that might have been present in one or both of
the assessments and (4) reviewing critical or non-routine tasks and calling for additional evidence as needed to establish a
given competency level.
8 IPTC 15177

Figure 4: Excerpt from CMS Online Assessment Verification form

The verification process involved the same criteria and job level requirements that were used in the assessments.
Verifications were conducted by an impartial facilitator to ensure that the Final Assessment Report would be accurate and
objective, and that any discrepancies or disagreements would be identified and resolved.
Some Assessments needed very little verification, while others required a significant review. Competency Units typically
selected for verification included those showing a significant gap between the Employee Assessment and the Supervisor
Assessment (for example, an employee rating himself at “Awareness” level while the Supervisor had him at “Skilled
Application” level), those that reflect critical tasks (e.g., Well Control for Drilling personnel), and those where the
discrepancy between Employee and Supervisor assessment was not necessarily large, but might make a difference in whether
or not training is assigned.

Data and Results

The CMS provides a direct display of the study results, beginning with a Dashboard summary that provides a high-level
managerial summary of project activity (Figure 5). From there, administrators or supervisors can then “drill down” to view
results for their assigned departments, job titles and individual employees.
IPTC 15177 9

Figure 5: CMS Dashboard Summary, data as of 10 February 2009

The Job Area Report provides all of the necessary details to understand the competency assessment for each individual. In
this report, the individual’s overall assessment is graphically displayed into the three assessment categories of Table 3.

Various icons displayed in the report can be opened to display additional information. The information contained within this
report provides the input for the Individual Development Plan (IDP), along with the necessary information for the CMS
system to identify and recommend training resources from the Training Resource database.

CMS Online computed the following overall competency rating as an average for the assessed E&P personnel:
• Competency Units for which Job Level Requirements were met: 42%
• Competency Units for which employees were within one level of meeting requirements: 46%
• Competency Units for which employees were more than one level short of meeting requirements: 13%
(Total = 101% due to rounding)

This means that a hypothetical “average” Geotechnical employee met or exceeded Job Level Requirements in 42 percent of
the Competency Units assessed for his or her job title. Forty-six percent of the Competency Units were indicated as “needing
improvement,” while 13 percent of them registered as significant skill gaps or Focus Areas. Based on these overall results, a
CIL “benchmark” was set at 42 percent to evaluate improvement over time.

Analysis of the Assessment results revealed common Focus Areas (“red” skill gaps) for specific departments; in the majority
of cases, however, competencies that did not meet the Job Level Requirements fell into the Needs Improvement category
(“yellow” skill gaps).
10 IPTC 15177

Table 4 summarizes technical skill gaps by Competency Area. In general, the greatest numbers of technical Focus Areas were
in Applied Drilling Engineering and Applied Completion Engineering, while there was a broad cross-section of competencies
in the “Needs Improvement” category.

Table 4: Number of Skill Gaps, Applied Technical Competencies

Competency Area Needs Improvement Focus Area Total
Applied Drilling Engineering 460 118 578
Applied Completion Engineering 226 168 394
Reservoir Characterization 356 36 392
Seismic Processing and Interpretation 287 64 351
Exploration Geophysics 247 77 324
Petroleum Geology 283 31 314
Applied Reservoir Engineering 217 49 266
Well Logging 196 12 208
Surface and Subsurface Systems 126 11 137
Applied Production Engineering 101 5 106
Enhanced Oil Recovery 76 7 83
Petrophysics 74 4 78
Well Testing 36 15 51
Reservoir Characterization and Modeling 44 5 49
Information Technology 2 8 10
Hydrogeology 5 0 5

Note that a large number or magnitude of skill gaps does not necessarily imply deficiency in a given area, but it may
mean simply that a larger number of employees were assessed in that area. Conversely, a small number of skill gaps may
mean that smaller numbers of employees were assessed. Neither does this high-level overview account for Job Level
Requirements or the relative importance of these gaps. Accounting for these variables required “drilling down” to the data for
each Department and job area, and this was done as part of CIL’s internal analysis.

The detailed analysis of the data at the job title and individual employee levels indicated several trends.

• The higher the number of Competency Units in a given Competency Model, and the higher the Job Level
Requirements associated these Competency Units, the greater the tendency toward a skill gap. In the Drilling
Department, for example, the percentage of Focus Areas increased (somewhat counter intuitively) in proportion to
increasing job responsibilities (Figure 6). This was a consequence of the Level 4 job requirements that characterize
most of the “core” drilling competencies. Thus, the skill gaps are not a reflection of job expertise at the higher
levels, but rather an indication of the higher standards they have been assigned with respect to Job Level
Requirements. A similar trend was seen in the Reservoir Engineering and Petroleum Engineering/Production
Technology groups.
IPTC 15177 11

Figure 6: Job Area Summary, Drilling

• Skill gaps reflected a lack of time on the job. An obvious but important point, again taking Drilling as an example:
Four of the Drilling Engineers at the junior levels showed “across the board” skill gaps in Applied Drilling
Engineering competencies. This is not surprising, however, in that all four of them indicated during the Job
Description interviews that they were Graduate Trainees.
• Skill gaps reflected a focus on specific tasks associated with assigned Job Descriptions. During the Job Description
interview process, it was observed that the younger Petroleum Engineers in particular were focused on specific areas
of responsibility (e.g., slickline operations), and did not have a broad range of experience in well completion and
workovers involving rig operations—even though these areas were considered important aspects of their Job
Descriptions. Either the employees had not been exposed to these areas such that they could demonstrate a “Basic
Application” level of competency, or they and their assessors were not yet confident that they have attained this
level.
• General E&P awareness showed up as a skill gap for geotechnical support personnel. In the Geotechnical
Graphics/CAD group, 68 percent of this group’s competencies scored in the “Needs Improvement” category. Most
of these competencies, however, were in the E&P technical areas (Geology, Geophysics, Drilling and Completion
Engineering, Reservoir Engineering and Formation Evaluation), and in all cases they had a Job Level Requirement
of “Awareness” (Level 1).
• Certain competencies, although they do not fall into the “top list” of Focus Areas, warrant special attention. The
HSE-related competencies “Oilfield Safety” and “Environmental Regulations and Procedures,” for example, fall
into this category. These competencies are critically important, particularly in such operations-oriented Departments
as Drilling Engineering & Operations, Petroleum Engineering and Production Technology and G&G Operations.
Gaps in these areas need to be identified and addressed on an individual basis.

In short, there may be any number of reasons for a set of gaps to exist. It is the gaps themselves that warrant attention. In the
end, these must be assessed on an individual basis, although the gap reports generated by the CMS provide a starting point.

Closing the Skill Gaps

Each of the Competency Models within the system was hyperlinked to learning resources, which were selected to help
provide the employee with the skills and knowledge needed to meet a particular Job Level Requirement. These resources can
be anything from e-Learning to descriptions of CIL in-house courses to training catalogues offered by outside providers.

The selection of training resources was based on meeting needs for cost and time effectiveness, measureable results, and
assurance that training and results meet industry standards, statutory requirements and international acceptance with respect
to accreditation and certification. It was also based on preferences related to training providers and in-house versus off-site
training.

While there are no restrictions regarding which training resources may match up to a given competency unit, some basic rules
of thumb apply:
• e-Learning is typically assigned to close skill gaps at the Awareness (JLR =1) or Basic Application (JLR = 2) levels.
It serves as a prerequisite or co-requisite for more comprehensive or advanced training, and is especially conducive
to addressing specific subject areas or providing “cross-training” on an interdisciplinary basis.
12 IPTC 15177

• Classroom instruction is a preferred option when:

• One or more employees have a substantial number of related skill gaps (e.g., Focus Areas in all
competencies related to Seismic Processing).
• The competency level to be attained is beyond the scope of what e-Learning is designed to cover—there are
few e-Learning modules, for example, that would enable a learner to attain Mastery level (JLR =4).
• The available e-Learning modules do not address a particular subject area.
• Closing a skill gap requires a credential or certification, which may only be offered by an industry
accredited training provider in a “live” training format.
• There is a need for hands-on experiences (e.g., HSE skills such as fire fighting or water survival training)
that cannot be duplicated or simulated in an e-Learning environment.

Following Up
In January 2010, a new phase of competency management began with a review and update of the geotechnical competency
models, followed by assessments of 154 employees in the Exploration, Reservoir Development, Geotechnical
Graphics/CAD, Drilling, Petroleum Engineering and Production Technology, and the recently formed Geotechnical Solutions
and Data Management department.

A review of the previous year’s experience with the CMS and the system enhancements that came out of this experience and
resulted in the following Action Items:
• Edit existing competency units for applicability, clarity and conciseness.
• Draft new competency units to address job requirements not previously covered, and to ensure that all tasks properly
reflected the job requirements.
• Re-organize existing Competency Libraries.
• Increase emphasis on Health, Safety and Environment (HSE), as well as Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR).
• Develop new Job Descriptions and Competency Models for the Geotechnical Solutions and Data Management
group.

These changes were implemented and a new set of assessments conducted for the geotechnical staff. On average, CIL
employees met or exceeded Job Level Requirements (JLRs) in roughly 62 percent of their assessed competencies in 2010
(compared with 42 percent in 2009). They were indicated as “needing improvement” in 29 percent of these competencies
(compared with 46 percent in 2009). Approximately 8 percent of these competencies were indicated as “Focus Areas,” in
which the employees assessed significantly below their JLRs (compared with 13 percent in 2009).

All Job Areas improved with respect to meeting JLRs and closing skill gaps.

• The two “best” Job Areas in terms of meeting overall JLRs were Reservoir Engineering and Geology and
Geophysics.
• Drilling and Petroleum Engineering-Production Technology still showed the highest percentages of Focus Areas
(“red” gaps). Yet they improved significantly over the course of a year.
• Geotechnical Solutions and Data Management, being a relatively new group, had no 2009 data.

In all cases, the majority of competencies that did not meet the JRLs fell into the “Needs Improvement” category

Results of the assessments underscored the importance of updating the CMS on a regular basis, and provided information on
where to focus training priorities on a departmental basis. The subsequent matchup of training resources to identified skill
gaps has provided a way forward in building a competent geotechnical workforce that meets or exceeds worldwide industry
standards.

Conclusions
The success of any competency management project requires buy-in from top down, through targeted communication of
project goals. The resulting system should include dynamic recording, reporting and data management capabilities as
essential for keeping up with personnel and organizational changes, reflecting new tasks and responsibilities, and providing
meaningful reports at all levels of the company, from senior managers who need the big picture to individuals who want to
map out their personal development. For these individuals, the generation of an Individual Development Plan provides a
learning roadmap, as well as dialogue opportunities with supervisors, based on actual assessment results.

The ability to match training resources and competency units provides a way forward for closing skill gaps and allocating
training priorities. Training resource matchup should be wide open, able to accommodate all forms of training. E-Learning a
logical first step in closing skill gaps at Awareness and Basic Application levels; OJT, either informal or structured, the most
 IPTC 15177 13

effective where practical; classroom and other formal training should be prioritized according to (1) number of skill gaps, (2)
number of people with particular skill gaps, and (3) the urgency of skill gaps.

Acknowledgments
The authors gratefully acknowledge Cairn India Limited for permission to publish, and the collective help and support of the
CIL petrotechnical staff in making possible the completion and implementation of the competency development project. The
guidance of Mr. Robert Taylor and Mr. Brad Donohue of IHRDC, and of Ms. Dana Bos (formerly with IHRDC, now with
MSH) in designing the CMS for CIL was instrumental in the success of the project.

References
Boyatzis, Richard E. (1982). The Competent Manager. Hoboken NJ, USA: John Wiley and Sons.
Hamel, G. and Prahalad, C.K. (1989). Strategic Intent. Harvard Business Review (May-June). Boston MA, USA: Harvard Business
Publishing.
Markus, Leanne H., Cooper-Thomas, Helena D., and Allpress, Keith N. (2005). Confounded by Competencies? An Evaluation of the
Evolution and Use of Competency Modules. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 34-2 (July).
Sengupta, Suvojoy, Gaurav Moda and Abishek Sharma (2010). The Big Crew Change: Managing the Talent Crisis in India’s Oil and Gas
Sector. At http://www.booz.com--Reports and White Papers (15 September). Gurgaon, India: Booz & Company
SPE Task Force on Minimal Competency (2010). SPE Competency Matrices, available at http://www/spe.org. Richardson, TX: Society of
Petroleum Engineers.

View publication stats