SI Series, Part 7: Common system integration failure patterns

When oil and gas companies announce mergers, headlines focus on reserves and synergies. Behind the scenes, the real challenge is integrating complex systems across two organizations.

Shell/BG, Oxy/Anadarko, ExxonMobil/XTO all struggled with integration despite sophisticated technology and expert teams. The problem wasn't the platforms—it was people and processes.

Pattern One: The Definition Trap

Different departments use the same words but mean completely different things.

Example: One system defines "production volume" as gross barrels at the wellhead. Another defines it as net barrels after processing and deductions. Teams agree on technical specs but miss this critical detail.

Result: Conflicting reports, data distrust, and months of expensive reconciliation work.

In practice: We observed one integration where teams aligned on everything except stratigraphy definitions. One used detailed geological models, the other used simplified depth calculations. The oversight created depth inconsistencies that cost millions to fix.

Pattern Two: The Silo Problem

Key stakeholders get left out of design decisions, creating workarounds that undermine the entire system.

Example: A new land management system is designed without adequate input from the legal department. The system can't handle specific contractual clauses or historical data formats legal teams need.

Result: Legal maintains parallel manual records, defeating the purpose of integration.

The reality: Integration looks complete on paper, but operational efficiency actually declines.

Pattern Three: Regional Inconsistencies

Forcing a single system design across different regions without accounting for local regulations, geology, and business practices.

Example: A global ERP system with standardized charts of accounts that doesn't accommodate international tax reporting or joint venture accounting practices.

Result: Complex manual adjustments at the local level, leading to errors and delays.

Real-world impact: ExxonMobil/XTO's integration took years to unwind regional inconsistencies despite sophisticated technical frameworks.

Pattern Four: Undocumented Trade-offs

Every integration involves compromises. Problems arise when these decisions aren't clearly communicated to affected teams.

Example: A well lifecycle management system simplifies data entry for field operations by reducing required fields. The subsurface team discovers too late they lack critical data for reservoir modeling.

Result: Teams work at cross-purposes, undermining system effectiveness.

Breaking the Cycle

Start with definitions, not technology. Align on how every critical data element will be defined before any system design begins. Don't assume consistency.

Force the hard conversations early. Use structured workshops to surface conflicting requirements. Get all stakeholder groups in the room and make them negotiate trade-offs upfront.

Document everything transparently. Every compromise affects someone. Document trade-offs in detail and share them with all teams to prevent surprises.

Test with real complexity. Pilot using actual data and scenarios, not ideal cases. This reveals where conflicting definitions and processes will cause problems.

The Bottom Line

Integration failures aren't technology problems—they're people and process problems that technology can't solve. Companies that acknowledge this reality upfront build systems that actually work.

The difference between successful and failed integrations isn't the sophistication of the platform. It's the quality of human decisions about how data, processes, and trade-offs are handled.

At Lease Analytics, we've seen these patterns derail otherwise well-planned integrations. The solution starts with understanding that technology follows organizational decisions, not the other way around.

---

If you’re planning an integration and want a partner who brings both competence and candor, schedule a consultation with us.