Narrative literature review identifies and categorizes 150 project opportunities in oil and gas, suggesting improved efficiency and community benefits.
Purpose Despite the importance of opportunity management, academic literature on this subject remains sparse across all sectors. This study aims to fill this gap by identifying project opportunities pertinent to the oil and gas industry and taxonomizing them into categories in an opportunity breakdown structure (OpBS). Design/methodology/approach A narrative literature review was conducted by searching Scopus and major academic book databases. An OpBS was then developed using open, axial and selective coding. Findings The literature review identified 150 project opportunities pertinent to the oil and gas industry. These opportunities are categorized into technical, management, commercial and external opportunities as Level 1 categorizations and are further divided into Level 2 subcategories. Research limitations/implications The narrative review approach may have introduced bias. The use of specific databases, predefined keywords, and an initial screening based on titles and abstracts could restrict the literature coverage. In addition, cross-sectoral insights may introduce subjectivity into the analysis. Practical implications The proposed OpBS can assist practitioners in systematically identifying, classifying, and capturing project opportunities. By highlighting areas in which project opportunities may be hidden, project efficiency and effectiveness can be improved. Social implications This study identifies opportunities for the oil and gas industry that may benefit local communities. These include job creation, improving community relations, encouraging sustainable practices and increasing the social value of projects. Originality/value This study develops an original, unified taxonomy of project opportunities in the oil and gas industry. This taxonomy introduces the consideration of opportunities as both uncertain events and choices.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Boukas et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: