Ten Second Coherence Test - Where Does Operations Lose Coherence Between Planning and Field Execution for Energy Companies?
- Sunil Dutt Jha
- Nov 11
- 3 min read
Ten-Second Coherence Test
Diagnostics Question:
Where do your operations lose coherence between planning and field execution?
P1 — Strategy (Production targets, ESG goals)
P2 — Process (Drilling, supply chain, compliance)
P3 — Systems / Logic (SCADA, ERP, asset models)
P4 — Component Specs (Sensors, data tags, configs)
P5 — Implementation Tasks
P6 — Operations
Which Gate Weakens Energy Flow?
Vote P1–P6 - Surface the systemic drift
Executive Context (P1–P2)
Energy companies master complexity—fields, pipelines, refineries, and grids—yet still lose alignment between what’s planned and what actually flows.
Budgets capture P1 (Strategy), operations chase P6 (Execution), but the middle gates are fractured.
Production targets, maintenance schedules, ESG reporting, and supply chain timelines operate like different nervous systems inside one body.
The ICMG Enterprise Anatomy™ model reveals why: each gate between Strategy and Operations translates intent in isolation instead of coherence.
Hidden Anatomy (P3)
The structural fault almost always lies in P3 (Systems / Logic). ERP governs cost and procurement logic; SCADA governs field and plant logic; compliance systems encode their own rule set. They all describe the same physical asset differently.
Example: the refinery’s asset hierarchy lists a pump as P-101A, while the maintenance system calls it Pump_A1.
When inspection alerts trigger, the system cannot link them to the same component—leading to duplicate work orders or missed alarms. Not a data error—a logic split.
Component & Implementation (P4–P5)
P4 (Component Specs): Sensor tags, OPC points, and integration maps rarely align with business definitions. ESG data fields—“emission factor,” “flaring volume”—exist in separate templates across reporting tools.
A 0.5 % variation per tag looks trivial until multiplied by thousands of sensors: invisible OPEX.
P5 (Implementation Tasks): Field IT and engineering vendors configure locally, rarely referencing the enterprise blueprint.
Each deployment increases drift by a fraction—until the enterprise runs multiple anatomies under one nameplate.
Operations & Impact (P6)
When coherence breaks, operations improvise: manual overrides, Excel reconciliations, verbal approvals. These keep production going but erode systemic integrity.
Across diagnostics in upstream & refining:
% of sensor data missing in ESG reports despite valid readings.
% increase in maintenance backlog traced to rule misalignment, not resource shortage.
2× duplication in project approval workflows between finance and field systems.
The organization produces barrels, but loses structural energy.
Diagnostic Map
Perspective | Anatomy Meaning | Common Failure in Energy | Observable Symptom |
P1 – Strategy | Production targets, ESG goals | Top-down targets without data model alignment | Conflicting KPIs between operations & sustainability |
P2 – Process | Planning → Drilling → Supply | Independent approval loops | Re-work & delayed sign-offs |
P3 – Systems / Logic | SCADA, ERP, Compliance logic | Asset ID & rule misalignment | Duplicate alerts & reporting gaps |
P4 – Component Specs | Sensors, tags, API configs | Non-standard naming and fields | Silent data loss across integrations |
P5 – Implementation | Build / deploy tasks | Vendor projects without blueprint traceability | Correct code, wrong logic context |
P6 – Operations | Daily run & monitoring | Manual bridges between systems | High reconciliation costs |
Pattern Recognition — Why the Drift Repeats
Function over Flow: Engineering, IT, and Compliance optimize individually, not anatomically.
Asset as Data Point, not Organism: Each platform holds a partial identity of the same asset.
Vendor-Defined Integration: System integrators stitch connections without enterprise logic ownership.
Governance Lag: Gate reviews focus on cost, not coherence.
Every new digital layer multiplies old misalignments.
Governance Implications — The Leadership Drift
Energy executives monitor barrels, emissions, and uptime—but rarely the alignment behind them.
The Chief Enterprise Architect must sit alongside the Chief Operations Officer to own gate coherence—the integrity of Strategy → Operations translation.
Governance must evolve from “approve projects” to “maintain enterprise anatomy.”
From Diagnosis to Restoration of Coherence
Model the Enterprise Anatomy (P1–P6 × D1–D15 across Exploration, Production, Refining, Supply, ESG).
Run Coherence Tests for planning-to-execution flows.
Apply ICMG X-Ray Protocol to trace logic conflicts in asset, finance, and ESG systems.
Establish Gate Governance with clear ownership per P-transition.
Publish Fast-Track Coherence Ratings to measure structural maturity.
Turning Insight into Action
Join the Oil & Energy Enterprise Architecture & Anatomy Forum to share gate-level findings.
Request a Fast-Track Coherence Rating for your operation or ESG program.
One Energy. One Anatomy™ | ICMG Enterprise Anatomy™ Diagnostics
