A drilling-and-completions-applications portfolio and its associated support services require constant attention if the portfolio is to remain up-to-date in both engineering and information technology (IT) terms and continue to serve the needs of the drilling-andcompletions engineering community. Over time, this management effort has become more involved and complex as the number of available applications has increased and the technologies have changed. The trend toward tighter integration and data sharing between drilling-and-completions applications and with other disciplines applications such as subsurface, places data management at the heart of the response. For large organizations, in particular, keeping up with the new releases and patches can be a challenge, and the need for backwards compatibility is paramount. Data issues and the poor connectivity associated with physical remoteness and some nonrig-based units also can impede the change out to other systems. Special attention is required for applications that are designated safety-critical or safety-related.This paper describes the way in which a major operator has defined and managed its drilling-and-completion portfolio during the last 20 years, to address the internal and industry changes and trends. The portfolio now serves the needs of more than 2,000 drilling-and-completions engineers worldwide. A wide range of examples, including the operator's WellAdvisor system, engineering toolkit, and wells/subsurface integration project, is presented, together with an evaluation of the portfolio-management challenges and successes that were achieved.It is concluded that integration requires the consistent application of strong data-management principles and a commitment to an underlying architecture to support simplification, reducing the number and complexity of the interfaces that one must manage. However, some flexibility is needed to promote the development of, and access to, new applications, and the concept of niche applications was introduced to address technical specialist's needs. Some applications that are either company-specific or are needed only in special circumstances do not lend themselves to being commercial products, and these tools are provided by custom-built, Web-based applications. The recent focus on real-time data, quality of service, and digital security is merely the latest change that has had to be accommodated.Despite the apparent rate at which technical and commercial changes are occurring, this paper's content illustrates the need to consider the portfolio-management issues over long cycle times. This paper will be of interest to both business and IT managers and engineers tasked with managing drilling, completions, and subsurface applications portfolios.

revealed that healthcare-system differences influence payer-preferences for PRO-type (e.g., generic/ disease-specific), influenced primarily by need for cost-effectiveness model. All payers stated that PRO-data provide unique perspective on condition/treatment but considered reimbursement difficult to influence; although stated that PRO-data can positively impact prescribing/MA. Payers reported that in EU, PROs are part of the clinical-evidence considered by HTA reviewing committees. Utility data derived from generic instruments are essential for key EU-markets (excluding Germany). US health plans are interested in PRO measures that are tied to "actionable" endpoints (e.g., adherence/persistence, tolerability, reduction in costs or resource utilisation). CONCLUSIONS: Key drivers for a successful PRO strategy include the development of robust PRO and communication strategy tailored to the needs/ requirements of the end-users (regulators, HTA and MA). Sponsors must continue to bring data based on robust PROs to regulators, HTA and MA and thus bringing the patient, the most affected stakeholder, to the forefront in decision making.OBJECTIVES: To identify key drivers for the successful integration of patientreported outcomes (PROs) in clinical programs designed to support regulatory label claims, health technology assessment (HTA) and market access (MA) in diabetes and obesity. METHODS: Reviews of published literature, regulatory, HTA and thirdparty websites were conducted to elicit key components of PRO strategies employed for two case examples: exenatide (diabetes) and lorcaserin (obesity). Qualitative one-on-one interviews were also conducted with payer decision-makers in key European (EU) and United States (US) markets to determine their perceptions of successful PROs strategies. RESULTS: Although there is an FDA draft guidance on PROs to support labeling claims, no disease-specific guidance on PRO-endpoints for obesity/diabetes are issued by FDA or EMA. Registration-trials included assessments of; symptoms/health-related-quality-of-life/depression/psychological-