Eliminate decision errors before simulation or operations begin
Operating at scale, our priority was consistency rather than customization. We needed decisions to be structured before execution, not reconciled afterward. What changed was that calculations and assumptions were enforced by the system itself, which reduced friction and eliminated entire classes of error.
Executive Introduction
High-consequence operations do not fail because data is unavailable. They fail because data is fragmented, manually maintained, inconsistently calculated, and cognitively expensive to manage under pressure. For decades, drilling and well operations have relied on spreadsheets and paper artifacts to bridge this gap, quietly accepting the risk that comes with them. This case documents a fundamentally different approach: a decision-centric data system that removes friction before simulation or operations begin.
DOT was designed not as a reporting tool, but as a structural correction to how operational data is created, verified, and consumed in real time.
Organizational Context
This case involved drilling organizations operating in time-critical, high-consequence environments where decisions are made collaboratively by drillers, supervisors, engineers, and operations management. Despite high levels of technical competence, these teams relied heavily on Excel spreadsheets and paper forms to manage kill sheets, pipe tallies, trip sheets, and trend monitoring.
These tools were familiar and flexible, but they introduced systemic risk:
The problem was not lack of expertise. It was the mismatch between general-purpose tools and high-consequence decision environments.
How the System Was Used
DOT was deployed as a centralized drilling operations toolbox used live during operations, not after the fact. Rather than asking crews to manage calculations manually, engineering logic was embedded directly into the software.
Inputs were constrained to what mattered. Calculations were locked and verified. Outputs were standardized across roles so that drillers, supervisors, and engineers were all referencing the same structured information in real time.
Kill charts, pipe tallies, trip tracking, and trend visualization were generated dynamically from live data rather than maintained manually. Deviated wells, tapered strings, and complex configurations were handled natively without requiring spreadsheet customization or workarounds.
The system became the authoritative operational reference rather than a parallel documentation exercise.
Characterization of the Structural Change
Excel and paper tools are fundamentally retrospective. They record decisions after they are made and rely on human discipline to maintain correctness. Under operational stress, that discipline degrades — not because people are careless, but because the tools were never designed for real-time, multi-user, high-risk decision environments.
DOT inverted this relationship.
By embedding engineering logic directly into the system, DOT removed entire classes of error rather than attempting to manage them procedurally. Calculations could not be overwritten. Data could not silently diverge. Trends became visible as they formed rather than after reconciliation.
This was not an interface improvement. It was a structural change in how operational data supports decision-making.
“Consistency mattered more than flexibility.”
Value Captured & Realized
Knowledge and Insight
Teams developed a shared operational picture rather than reconciling competing spreadsheets. Confidence shifted from individual judgment calls to system-verified information. This reduced ambiguity during critical moments and improved cross-discipline alignment.
Operational Impact
Administrative workload dropped materially. Crews spent less time maintaining artifacts and more time monitoring operations. Decision latency decreased because information was already structured, calculated, and validated.
Across deployments, manual data handling and reconciliation effort was reduced by an estimated 40–60%.
Cost and Risk Implication
DOT eliminated a major source of latent operational risk: clerical and calculation errors during critical operations. Avoiding even a single such error — which can escalate into non-productive time, equipment damage, or safety events — represents $250,000 to $1 million USD or more in avoided cost.
More importantly, DOT reduced reliance on human memory and vigilance as the primary safeguards in complex operations.
Established Outcome
Simulation credibility begins with data integrity. DOT established that operational data must be structured around decisions, not documentation. By removing friction upstream, the platform made downstream simulation, validation, and training materially more effective.
Closing Perspective
Most organizations attempt to compensate for fragile data workflows with additional checks, reviews, and procedures. DOT took a different approach: it removed the fragility itself. This case establishes DOT as a foundational system — not because it replaces spreadsheets, but because it eliminates the conditions that made them necessary in the first place.
Back to Case Studies