Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part VIII

I think it would be easy to attain a consensus that the underlying earth science and engineering, which is the basis of the competitive advantage of the oil and gas producer, is on a steep upward trajectory. The past few years has demanded more engineering and earth science per barrel of oil, and the complexity or difficulty of those inputs are on their own separate but related trajectory. The science of oil and gas will be the means in which producers are able to attain the market demand for energy. In this post Professor Dosi shows how these trajectories are affected by technological paradigms.

Technological paradigms have been directly linked with major scientific breakthroughs, form the discovery of the transistor to the development of modern computer technologies. Professor Dosi states that these links between science and technology have been evident since the days of Leonardo da Vinci and Galileo. What was unique to the 20th century was that the need to generate and utilize scientific knowledge, was internal to, and often a necessary condition of the development of new technology paradigms. Up until the end of the 19th century, most technological innovations were the development of imaginative craftsmen. Many of the 20th century development were the results of multiple disciplines, such as physics and microelectronics, whose scientists were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1962 for the semi-conductor.

Professor Dosi concludes that scientific input into the innovation process is evidence of the importance of factors exogenous to competitive forces among private economically motivated actors. This is subject to two important qualifications.

• Science and Technology are self-fulfilling in their developments.
• Scientific advances play a major direct role, especially at an early phase of development of new technological paradigms. p. 1136

These points support Dosi’s (1988) assertion that “general scientific knowledge yields a widening pool of potential technological paradigms,” where the greatest value is attained in the earlier stages. Professor Dosi analyzes the specific mechanisms through which a few of these potential paradigms are actually developed economically, subsequently applied, and that often have become dominant in their industry. The process of selection depends on the following factors.

• The nature and interests of the bridging institutions between pure research and economic applications. (p. 1136)
• Institutional factors that drive the technology or science, such as (the military) (p. 1137)
• The selection criteria of markets and or techno-economic requirements of early users. (p. 1137) (NASA, Pentagon the FDA and Nuclear Reactors for the Navy.)
• Trial and error associated with the Schumpterian entrepreneurship. 

Professor Dosi (1988) continues on to assert that much of the innovativeness of a firm is dependent on technology more than science, and is based on several implications. The first implication being the net benefactor of the cumulativeness, tacitness and technological knowledge implies that “innovation and the capabilities for pursuing them are to an extent local and firm specific.” Secondly, the “opportunity for technological advances in any one economic activity can also be expected to, and constrained by, the characteristics of each technological paradigm and its degree of maturity”. This is further defined by the technological and scientific capabilities, and “the advances made by suppliers and customers.” (p. 1137)

Recently we learned of the difficulty for a firm to copy another firms ideas or capability provides little to no value. On the contrary the effort to copy the capabilities is as potentially difficult as building their own unique capabilities. Today we learn that innovation is dependent on the technology that supports the firm. That is the technology both enables and / or constrains the capabilities of the producer.

Professor Dosi notes “New technology paradigms reshape the patterns of opportunities of technical progress in terms of both the scope of potential innovations and ease with which they are achieved.” p. 1138. The technology that a producer has includes the ERP systems used within the organization.  When the business is a science, as it is in oil and gas, it would be in the producers interest to remain open and flexible in both its scientific and business approach. This is the strategic position that a producer would be capable of maintaining with People, Ideas & Objects software applications, based on the Draft Specification.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Review Dosi Innovation Research

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part VII

We move back to our review of the Preliminary Research report and pick up with Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation.” Last Monday we discussed the difficulty and complexity in identifying and supporting innovation within an oil and gas firm. How both the science and business aspects of the firm need to be addressed. Today we discuss application of our factor of revenue per employee in identifying the level of innovativeness within the firm and / or Joint Operating Committee, and comparing it within a cluster of producers in which a firm competes. A cluster being the larger grouping of producers that are oriented to a single geographical region. People, Ideas & Objects believes that competitiveness between and within clusters will become more of a focus of producer firms. It should also be questioned that in the search for oil and gas, how much of the scientific capability of a producer is dependent on a standard or historical basis of competitive understanding and capability, and how much is based on a future understanding of cooperation within a cluster and / or competition against unknown and unseen global participants? Dosi notes.

In general, each organizational arrangement of a firm embodies procedures for resource allocation to particular activities (in our case, innovative activities), and for the efficient use of these resources in the search for new products, new processes, and procedures for improvements in existing routines; however, the specific nature of these procedures differs across firms and sectors. For example, the typical degrees of commitment of resources vary by industry and so do the rates at which learning occurs. I now turn to the interpretation of these phenomena. p. 1135

Professor Dosi (1988) states that profit motivated agents must involve both “the perception of some sort of opportunity and an effective set of incentives.” (p. 1135) Professor Dosi introduces the theory of Schmookler (1966) and asked “are the observed inter-sectoral differences in innovative investment the outcome of different incentive structures, different opportunities or both”? (p. 1135) Schmookler believed in differing degrees of economic activity derived from the same innovate inputs.

Using the factor of revenue per employee helps to define and clarify the value in assessing “the observed inter-sectoral differences” of an oil and gas company in investment outcome. The producer firm would then have the “different incentive structures” and “different opportunities” as the tools in which to increase their revenue per employee. This also reflects that “different incentive structures” and “different opportunities” are the product of the organizational structure that the producer firm employs.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Review Dosi Innovation Research

McKinsey, The Psychology of Change Management

McKinsey, once again, have published an article that provides real value and discussion to the work we are doing here at People, Ideas & Objects. Change is a difficult process to manage. This article discusses the psychology around change management within organizations, and therefore is relevant, but I want to mention a few aspects of People, Ideas & Objects unique perspective before we review this paper.

There are two types of changes that affect organizations. The first type of change is to steer the ship in a new direction, one that is believed to be the better choice for all concerned. The second type of change is the type that is forced upon an organization by events that are beyond the control of anyone. People, Ideas & Objects is oriented to the second type of change. One that addresses the scope of the forces of change that are being exercised on the oil and producer.

The forces of change that are currently being asserted on the oil and gas producers are significant. The change in oil and gas prices affects all aspects of a producer firm. At the same time the volume of engineering and earth science effort per barrel of oil continues on a steep upward trajectory. A third major change that is occurring is what I would call the maturation of the Information Technologies (IT), bringing new and innovative ways of doing business. These are of the type of changes that are seen once a century. Fundamental changes that have the power to re-configure the makeup of an industry.

To accommodate the changes that are acting against the producer firm, People, Ideas & Objects prescription is to align the producers internal processes. By simply moving the compliance and governance frameworks to be in alignment with the Joint Operating Committee’s legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communications frameworks. Our research has shown that this alignment increases innovativeness and accountability, to name just two of the key benefits.

Alternatively, left unaddressed, these changes will soon cause producers to outspend their revenue streams. These losses will also exercise the type of change that is needed within the producer firm and the oil and gas industry. Producers therefore need to choose to ride these forces or continue to resist them. Either way that these changes are made, People, Ideas & Objects will provide the systems and applications that provide the innovative oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

Our claim to be the most profitable means of oil and gas operations is a bold statement. And we assert that this is provided through our value proposition and the enhanced division of labor the software will identify and support. By allocating the one time development costs across the producer base, the costs of software development will fall to a small percentage of what firms have traditionally paid for ERP systems.

With respect to the second component of our claim to being the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. For any industry to increase its economic output demands that an enhanced division of labor be used. This economic theory has been proven time and again over the last few hundred years. We now live in times where to expand on the current division of labor and specialization requires that advanced Information Technologies be employed to identify and support them. People, Ideas & Objects is configured to develop the software that will provide these to the producer firm. This is our fundamental competitive advantage.

McKinsey’s discussion on change is of the first type, or deliberate change an organization undertakes. Nonetheless it provides us with some valuable information regarding change in general.

Over the past 15 or so years, programs to improve corporate organizational performance have become increasingly common. Yet they are notoriously difficult to carry out. Success depends on persuading hundreds or thousands of groups and individuals to change the way they work, a transformation people will accept only if they can be persuaded to think differently about their jobs. In effect, CEOs must alter the mind-sets of their employees—no easy task.

People, Ideas & Objects have presented a workable vision of how the innovative oil and gas producer would operate. This vision is represented in the Draft Specification. People can then see the effect of working in that environment and adjust their actions to fulfill that vision and enable the innovative oil and gas producer.

But what if the only way a business can reach its higher performance goals is to change the way its people behave across the board? Suppose that it can become more competitive only by changing its culture fundamentally—from being reactive to proactive, hierarchical to collegial, or introspective to externally focused, for instance. Since the collective culture of an organization, strictly speaking, is an aggregate of what is common to all of its group and individual mind-sets, such a transformation entails changing the minds of hundreds or thousands of people. This is the third and deepest level: cultural change.

With the benefits of people having this vision in mind. And using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative producer, people will be able to think differently about their work.

Employees will alter their mind-sets only if they see the point of the change and agree with it—at least enough to give it a try. The surrounding structures (reward and recognition systems, for example) must be in tune with the new behavior. Employees must have the skills to do what it requires. Finally, they must see people they respect modeling it actively. Each of these conditions is realized independently; together they add up to a way of changing the behavior of people in organizations by changing attitudes about what can and should happen at work.

In this next quote McKinsey note that cognitive dissonance will affect the people who believe in our purpose. I can only suggest that those people begin the process of joining People, Ideas & Objects or the Community of Independent Service Providers.

The implication of this finding for an organization is that if its people believe in its overall purpose, they will be happy to change their individual behavior to serve that purpose—indeed, they will suffer from cognitive dissonance if they don’t. But to feel comfortable about change and to carry it out with enthusiasm, people must understand the role of their actions in the unfolding drama of the company’s fortunes and believe that it is worthwhile for them to play a part. It isn’t enough to tell employees that they will have to do things differently. Anyone leading a major change program must take the time to think through its "story"—what makes it worth undertaking—and to explain that story to all of the people involved in making change happen, so that their contributions make sense to them as individuals.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Call-to-action Change Management Leadership Vision

More on Oracle Fusion Applications

Larry Ellison finished off his 2010 Oracle Open World conference with a keynote that focused on his new applications and other related announcements. I find that his presentations are must see events and this one did not disappoint. Many of the comments that he made will have significant impact on the technology marketplace for years to come. These are some of the points that he made.

When talking about Exadata and Exalogic, the new hardware to run the Oracle database and Java, he continually stressed they were “hardware and software engineered together”. When buying these products every component of the servers configuration is standardized down to the most minute point. They are not something you could order with different components being upgraded or traded on. This was important as the support and services of those configurations will be standard across large portions of Oracle’s marketplace. Therefore if a database server fails for an Oracle customer on the other side of the Atlantic, they can diagnose it, and engineer a fix that can then be populated across the Exadata and Exalogic installed base. A fundamentally different way to deliver hardware and software reliability, accessibility, security and service.

Oracle will continue to spend over $4.0 billion in research and development each year. Oracle Fusion Applications were Oracle’s largest engineering project ever. Another comment that caught my attention was the additions that were being added to Java. He would be introducing new 2D and 3D vector graphics to the specification. These graphics in addition to HTML 5.0 would provide the opportunity to expand and enhance the user interface of People, Ideas & Objects applications.

Comments that were made about Oracle Fusion Applications included their interaction with other ERP applications. One of the key roles we look to the Community of Independent Service Providers is the integration of the oil and gas producers firm on to the People, Ideas & Objects applications. As has been discussed here, this integration will now include Fusion integration with SAP, PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards and Oracle E-Business. During the presentation Ellison stated that no one would propose a “rip and replace” and this reverse integration was a key attribute of firms adopting Oracle Fusion Applications, and by association People, Ideas & Objects.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Oracle Oracle-Stack

S + B, Big Oil and the Natural Gas Bonanza

Booz & Co’s periodical Strategy + Business have published a paper that asks the question;

The oil majors hope to make major money in natural gas, but can they learn to operate two distinct types of businesses under one roof?

Noting that unconventional gas requires a different business model that may not be served by the conventional methods of the industry.

The unexpected revival of natural gas is quietly precipitating a fundamental shift in the oil and gas industry — a shift that few companies were prepared for but that may determine the industry’s overall future makeup. It pits the major oil companies against the independents, which have plied the unconventional reservoirs doggedly over the last seven to 10 years. And it raises questions about whether the oil giants can become big players in this new unconventional gas business. To do so, they will have to develop dual operating models under one roof — one, a traditional high-risk, corporate-led exploration model, and the other, a nimble, efficient, and decentralized operation. In other industries (notably airlines), such two-headed strategies have generally failed.

Change is certainly in the air. Oil and gas prices are probably one of the best measures of the level of change in the oil and gas industry. It is pleasant to see Strategy + Business’ analysis providing confirmation to many of the things that we have stated here. This critique is to ensure the innovative producers remain successful.

In order to compete in unconventional assets, oil majors will have to embrace a dual operating model — in essence, pairing traditional operations with separate and more agile business units modeled after the independent gas firms, with flatter organizations, simpler governance structures, and an emphasis on efficiency and innovation. These attributes are necessary to reduce operating costs, as well as to allow the firms to quickly adapt new well designs, source local contractors and materials, and secure labor as needed.

What concerns me is the nature of the oil and gas industry towards new ideas. There is a culture of how management will not support new ideas, which includes this software development project. I have attributed this to the 1980’s and 1990’s survival strategies that were a necessity in oil and gas. Times have changed and its time for the management to realize they have to act. S + B note.

Above all, management will need to ensure that existing processes and structures do not discount these fresh ideas because of a “not invented here” bias. If a joint venture is part of this approach, the company will need to develop a plan that allows it to learn from the arrangement, by creating formal and informal governance mechanisms to promote the transfer and dissemination of knowledge.

I am under no illusions at the scope of change that we are introducing in this project. Using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative producer will be necessary at some point in the very near future. An idea that resonates with those in the business as something we should have been doing all along. By delaying this project, one in which we have many years of work ahead of us, I believe is dangerous.

If designed and managed appropriately, either strategy could be successful, but history suggests that most of the oil giants will struggle to make dual operating models coexist. Though it may not seem obvious today, many of these companies are likely to find that the technical hurdles of unconventional reserves are relatively minor. Far tougher — and ultimately out of reach for some — will be the challenge of changing behavior and culture. 

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Change Exploration Energy Innovation Management Organization Strategy

Components of Oracle Fusion Applications

Included in the Oracle announcement is...

Oracle Fusion Financials is part of Oracle Fusion Applications, which are completely open, standards-based enterprise applications that can be easily integrated into a service-oriented architecture. Designed as a complete suite of modular applications, Oracle Fusion Applications help you improve performance, lower IT costs, and get better results. Whether you choose one module, a product family, or the entire suite, Oracle enables you to gain the benefits of Oracle Fusion Applications at a pace that matches your business needs.

Ah we’ll take the whole suite. I’m not going to detail the actual modules that will be used in the application, that's for others to decide. My involvement in the Preliminary Specification and subsequent development is nothing. As I have mentioned here before, I have to choose between doing all of the work or none, and I have taken the sane choice. There is no in between. Although I would love to participate in these developments, my role is to secure the financial resources for the development team and Community of Independent Service Providers.

From what I have been able to read about the application modules, they will be extremely flexible and provide the Community of Independent Service Providers with the ability to bring substantial and innovative systems to their producer clients.

Two things that stand out in my quick review, the first being what’s not there. That is any oil and gas specific functionality or process management. These are generic applications that are designed to be developed further for the individual industries use. That is where People, Ideas & Objects, and the Community of Independent Service Providers, will develop and provide the industry with systems based on using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative producer.

The second point is about the overall architecture of the applications. SAP requires you to pick a process that is close to what you want and cater the firm to that process. As was noted in a recent post, the Oracle Fusion Applications provide the opportunity to design the most efficient organizational process and then build the systems to support the optimal solution.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Specification Preliminary Oracle Oracle-Stack

Larry Ellison Oracle Keynote

We have video highlights of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison's Keynote address. In this video Ellison talks about thier new products ExaLogic and Oracle Fusion Applications.



Oracle ExaLogic complements ExaData which was released within the last year. ExaLogic works to provide the Java Server functions to the ExaData Database.

Oracle Fusion Applications take up the last third of the video and they are all that I had hoped for them to be. Oracle have based the applications on 100% on their Fusion Middleware which provides People, Ideas & Objects with the fine granularity and control of the applications process and functionality. So when we embed, as the Draft Specification states, the production volumes within the Accounting Voucher module. We gain the ability to implement these features in a seamless and efficient manner, with the full integrity of Oracle's investment in Oracle Fusion Applications.

Oracle has put everything they have into the future of Oracle Fusion Applications. The product is the result of "taking the best of Oracle Financials, PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards and Seibel", based on Java (recall Oracle now owns Java), and the result of five years of development efforts. If Oracle has done this right, which I think they have, they have a sizable opportunity ahead of them.

More good news comes in the form of when the applications will be generally available. It is reasonable to assume that they will have these applications available in the first half of 2011 which is in line with our needs of starting the development of the Preliminary Specification on January 1, 2011.

Technorati Tags: People's Oracle Oracle-Stack

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part VI

People, Ideas & Objects focus is on providing ERP systems based on using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative producer. The reason for doing this is to support the innovative oil and gas producers in the difficult processes of identifying and supporting innovation. In this first quotation, I find Professor Dosi has captured the difficulty the producer faces in the scientific and business processes of the firm.

In general the uncertainty associated with innovative activities is much stronger than that with which familiar economic model deals. It involves not only lack of knowledge of the precise cost and outcomes of different alternatives, but often also lack of knowledge of what the alternatives are (see Freeman 1982; Nelson 1981a; Nelson and Winter 1982). 

In fact, let us distinguish between (a) the notion of uncertainty familiar to economic analysis defined in terms of imperfect information about the occurrence of a known list of events and (b) what we could call strong uncertainty whereby the list of possible events is unknown and one does not know either the consequences of particular actions for any given event (more on this in Dosi and Egidi 1987). 

I suggest that, in general, innovative search is characterized by strong uncertainty. This applies, in primis to those phases of technical change that could be called pre-paradigmatic: During these highly exploratory periods one faces a double uncertainty regarding both the practical outcomes of the innovative search and also the scientific and technological principles and the problem-solving procedures on which technological advances could be based. When a technological paradigm is established, it brings with it a reduction of uncertainty, in the sense that it focuses the directions of search and forms the grounds for formatting technological and market expectations more surely. (In this respect, technological trajectories are not only the ex post description of the patterns of technical change, but also, as mentioned, the basis of heuristics asking “where do we go from here?”) p. 1134

Lets be clear, the uncertainty resides in both the scientific and business realms. I am not of the opinion that the two can be separated, as is done in other systems such as SAP. This is maybe why the industry has been poorly served, in my opinion, by the business systems that operate today. They don’t recognize the innovative and science basis of the business.

However, even in the case of “normal” technical search (as opposed to the “extraordinary” exploration associated with the quest for new paradigms) strong uncertainty is present. Even when the fundamental knowledge base  and the expected directions of advance are fairly well known, it is still often the case that one must first engage in exploratory research, development, and design before knowing what the outcome will be (what the properties of a new chemical compound will be, what an effective design will look like, etc.) and what some manageable results will cost, or, indeed, whether very useful results will emerge. p. 1135

Add to this situation the complexity of interactions of the producers that are represented in the JOC and we begin to see the difficulty expressed by Professor Dosi. Having misaligned frameworks where the bureaucracy is attuned to only compliance and governance of the firm. Is the easy way to deal with the complexity and difficulty in this business. In other words just ignore it. This is how you have CFO’s stand up at the annual meeting and state that, on a budget basis, the firm will produce an additional 10% next calendar year. Dosi notes;

As a result, firms tend to work with relatively general and event-independent routines (with rules of the kind “... spend x% of sales on R & D,” ... distribute your research activity between basic research, risky projects, incremental innovations according to some routine shares ...” and sometimes meta-rules of the kind “with high interest rates or low profits cut basic research,” etc.). This finding is corroborated by ample managerial evidence and also by recent more rigorous econometric tests; see Griliches and Ariel Pakes (1986) who find that “the pattern of R & D investment within a firm is essentially a random walk with a relatively low error variance” (pp. 10 - 11). In this sense, Schumpeter’s hypothesis about the routinization of innovation (Joseph Schumpeter 1942) and the persistence of innovation-related uncertainty must not be in conflict but may well complement each other. As suggested by the “late” Schumpeter, one may conjecture that large-scale corporate research has become the prevailing form of organization of innovation because it is most effective in exploiting and internalizing the tacit and cumulative feature of technological knowledge (Mowery 1980; Pavitt 1986). Moreover, companies tend to adopt steady policies (rules), because they face complex and unpredictable environments where they cannot forecast future states of the world, or even “map” notional events into actions, and outcomes (Dosi and Orsenigo 1986; Heiner 1983, 1988). Internalized corporate search exploits the cumulativeness and complexity of technological knowledge. Together with steady rules, firms try to reduce the uncertainty of innovative search, without however, eliminating it. pp. 1134 - 1135

Such was the state of business in 1988 for Professor Dosi. I would argue that the luxury of time in 2010 doesn't exist. Given all the time and all the resources we are able to achieve great things. Dealing with the real world constraints of the science of oil and gas in this business has to be purposely addressed. That is the business of People, Ideas & Objects in developing the systems defined in the Draft Specification.

Internalization and routinization in the face of the uncertainty and complexity of the innovative process also point to the importance of particular organizational arrangements for the success or failure of individual innovative attempts. This is what was found by the SAPPHO Project (cf. Science Policy Research Unit 1972 and Rothwell et al. 1974), possibly the most extensive investigation of the sources of commercial success or failure of innovation: Institutional traits, both internal to the firm - such as the nature of the organizational arrangements between technical and commercial people, or the hierarchical authority within the innovating firm - and between a firm and its external environment - such as good communication channels with users, universities, and so on - turn out to be very important. Moreover, it has been argued (Pavitt 1986; Robert Wilson, Peter Ashton and Thomas Egan 1984) that, for given incentives and innovative opportunities, the various forms of internal corporate organization (U form versus M form centralized versus decentralized, etc.) affect innovation and commercial success positively or negatively, according to the particular nature of each technological paradigm and its stage of development. p. 1135

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Review Innovation Dosi Research

Quick Post - Oracle Fusion Applications

This is a quick note that on Sunday Oracle will begin their 2010 Oracle Open World conference. The main announcement that is of particularly interest to us involves their Oracle Fusion Applications. These are the next generation ERP applications that all of Oracle’s installed base, consisting of Oracle Financials, PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards and Siebel, will eventually move to. Built on the Oracle Fusion Middleware Java server, these applications are developed with the future in mind and represent a multi-billion dollar investment by Oracle.

People, Ideas & Objects are Oracle customers and are including Oracle Fusion Applications within our software offering. We are leveraging that multi-billion investment that Oracle has made with the Intellectual Property (IP) around using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer.

What does Oracle Fusion Applications have in store for the oil and gas firm? It’s unknown at this point. Of the many industries that Oracle applications cater too, oil and gas is on the lighter side in terms of investment and features. I expect this to be the case for the new Oracle Fusion Applications. If they were making any oil and gas specific investments I think we would have heard about them. Nonetheless, irrespective of Oracle’s plans in oil and gas, People, Ideas & Objects will build the applications based on the Draft Specification and Oracle Fusion Applications.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Quick-Post Oracle Oracle-Stack

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part V

Today’s post leads ultimately to the difficulty for the producer in defining where the boundary of the firm and markets begin and end. Much research has been conducted in this area, and the Draft Specification draws a definitive line between the firm and the marketplace. There the marketplace is represented in the Joint Operating Committee. The primary reason for this definition of the boundary of the firm and marketplace is the proprietary earth science and engineering capability and information that the producer firm holds.

The question therefore becomes how is this proprietary information and capability deployed on an as needed basis. Professor Dosi notes that although the free movement of information has occurred in industries for many years, yet has never been easily transferable to other companies within those industries. The ability to replicate a competitive advantage from one company to another is not as easy, and may indeed be not worthwhile doing. Dosi (1988) goes one step further and states, “even with technology license agreements, they do not stand as an all or nothing substitute for in house search.” A firm needs to develop “substantial in-house capacity in order to recognize, evaluate, negotiate and finally adapt the technology potentially available from others.” Therefore why not focus on the need to increase the companies own unique and specific competitive sources and directions.

This also imputes that the free flow of information between producers through collaborations in the Joint Operating Committee would increase the knowledge, yet not expose anyone of the specific organizations to any specific losses of key knowledge, proprietary information or capability.

Information’s shelf life expires faster each day. Knowledge and information need to be employed and deployed where and when they are required. This research’s collaborative method of employing the intellectual property might facilitate a greater value, to the participating producer, and would provide the groundwork for future innovations and expansion of the underlying engineering and earth sciences. And although no specific proof of this can be sourced at this time, today’s hierarchical organizational structure is the impediment to the speed of innovation developments, its adoption and application, and it is asserted through this Preliminary Research report that this is tacitly understood.

Professor Dosi (1988) cites the dichotomy of Adam Smith in that organizations are comprised of those that “system learning effects on economic efficiency by way of the division of labor,” and “the degrading brutality which repetitive and mindless tasks could imply for some groups of workers”. These support the “how to do things” (the JOC) and “how to improve them” (the producer firm).

This dichotomy reflects the challenge of improving the processes and products through trial and error, with heavy emphasis on the error. The ability to accurately predict the success or failure of a new idea contains inherent high risks and hence high rewards. This is one of the constraining factors in implementing innovative thinking, in that no one wants to be proven wrong. Whereas, even if the idea fails the ability to test the theory, the failure may ultimately lead to and may be the key to discovery. Professor Dosi states;

Organizational routines and higher level procedures to alter them in response to environmental changes and / or to failures in performance embody a continuous tension between efforts to improve the capabilities of doing existing things, monitor existing contracts, allocate given resources, on the one hand, and the development of capabilities for doing new things or old things in new ways. This tension is complicated by the intrinsically uncertain nature of innovative activities, notwithstanding their increasing institutionalization within business firms. p. 1133

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Dosi Innovation Review Research

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part IV

In yesterday’s post we noted that the comparison of revenue per employee over multiple periods would impute a trajectory of the firm or Joint Operating Committee’s innovativeness. Recall Professor Dosi notes that innovation is developed through the interactions between the “capabilities and stimuli” and “broader causes external to the individual industries such as the state of science”. In today’s post we take the concept of this trajectory, define it, and apply it to oil and gas.

The definition of a technological trajectory is the activity of technological process along the economic and technological trade offs defined by a paradigm. Dosi (1988) states “Trade-offs being defined as the compromise, and the technical capabilities that define horsepower, gross takeoff weight, cruise speed, wing load and cruise range in civilian and military aircraft.” People, Ideas & Objects assumes the technical trade-off in oil and gas is accurately reflected in the commodity pricing. Higher commodity prices finance enhanced innovation.

These trade-offs facilitate the ability for industries to innovate on the changing technical and scientific paradigms. Crucial to the facilitation of these trade-offs is a fundamental component that spurs the change and is usually abundant and available at low costs. For innovation to occur in oil and gas, People, Ideas & Objects would assert that the ability to seek and find knowledge, and to collaborate are two “commodities” that are abundant today. With their inherent low direct costs, knowledge and collaboration are the triggers for a number of technical paradigms which will provide companies with fundamental innovations.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Dosi Innovation Review Research

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part III

In our previous post we introduced revenue per employee as a factor of determining the innovativeness of a producer firm or Joint Operating Committee. Asking if the calculation would provide a reasonable comparison of the innovativeness that exists. However, would this calculation reflect the quality of assets, the size of the firm or its actual innovativeness? That is the question that is being answered in this post.

Clearly the revenue per employee would reflect many factors other then the innovativeness of the firm or JOC. However, would the comparison of revenue per employee over multiple periods be a determining factor of innovativess? I think it would. That the increase / decrease in the factor would be as a result of an increase or decrease in price and volume, with the volume being particularly affected by the changes and innovations that occurred over the period in the firm or JOC.

Much analysis has been undertaken to determine the actual outputs from innovation and compare those to the input costs and attempt, as one does in today’s technology environment, to determine a return on investment on technology, innovation and research and development.

Professor Dosi reviews a number of studies that focus on quantifying the output part of the equation. These are comprehensive in the number, heterogeneous in the conclusions, yet, Dosi feels he has been able to find a number of threads that determine which factors or characteristics are influential and of crucial importance in the economics of technological change.

Professor Dosi states “In very general terms, technological innovation involves or is the solution to problems.” Dosi goes on to further define this as “In other words, an innovative solution to a certain problem involves “discovery” (of the problem) and “creation” since no general algorithm can be derived from the information about the problems. Solutions to technological problems involve the use of information derived from experience and formal knowledge. It is the specific and un-codified capabilities, or “tacit-ness” as Professor Dosi describes “on the part of the inventors who discover the creative solution.”

It is therefore asked specifically, how can the knowledge, information and capability of oil and gas firms solve the technical and scientific problems of the future? How can a firm more effectively employ its capability to solve problems and facilitate the discovery of new problems and creation of their solutions? Clearly some companies are more effective at this process then others, but this research in oil and gas asks, is there a means for an organization to provide a quantum increase in its ability to innovate that leads to higher trajectories of performance based on production revenue per employee?

If the knowledge of the underlying oil and gas sciences increases in its understanding, what organization structure can best facilitate innovation? Would “any” organizational structure have a requirement to parallel the changes and developments in the sciences? How are the scientific problems, the refinement of models, the discovery and success of innovative thinking communicated throughout a bureaucracy? Self-organizing teams, as represented by the JOC, provide the most effective and efficient means of organizational structure.

It is this enhanced innovativeness that using the JOC as the key organizational construct provides. Matching the faster pace of change in the underlying sciences and mapping the necessary changes within the organization will be a means of increased performance within the producer / JOC. Providing the foundation for the producer to build their competitive advantages and scientific and engineering capabilities.

In addition to providing a strong competitive advantage to the producer firms, use of People, Ideas & Objects software applications would also provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Recall this is the competitive advantage of this software development project and the Community of Independent Service Providers. We provide this second value added process to the innovative producer by ensuring that the most effective division of labor and specialization, defined and supported by the software, are used in the day to day operations of the oil and gas producer.

Therefore when we consider the calculation of revenue per employee, we see these two forces in play. The first being the producer / JOC moving with the changes in their earth science and engineering capabilities. And secondly, with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations based on using the People, Ideas & Objects software applications enhanced division of labor and specialization, and our Community of Independent Service Providers.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Dosi Innovation Research Review

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part II

In this the second part of our review of the Preliminary Research reports summary of innovation. We note Professor Dosi’s key factors of innovation, and its application to oil and gas. One of the breakthroughs that was determined in the Preliminary Research report was the use of revenue per employee as a means of determining what the producer firm and / or Joint Operating Committee could use as a determination of its level of innovativeness.

In determining the key factors of innovation Professor Dosi notes:

The search, development and adoption of new processes and products in market economies are the outcome of the interaction between:

• Capabilities and stimuli generated with each firm and within the industry of which they complete.

and

• Broader causes external to the individual industries, such as the state of science in different branches, the facilities for the communication of knowledge, the supply of technical capabilities, skills, engineers etc.

Additional issues include the conditions controlling occupational and geographical mobility and or consumer promptness / resistance to change, market conditions, financial facilities and capabilities and the criteria used to allocate funds. Microeconomic trends in the effects on changes in relative prices of inputs and outputs, including public policy. (regulation, tax codes, patent and trademark laws and public procurement.)

Based on the capabilities and stimuli of innovation present in the oil and gas sector, particularly the microeconomic effect of the commodity prices, it is reasonable to conclude that oil and gas would be an area where significant innovation can and needs to occur. The primary reasons for the future enhanced innovation is due to the following analysis of the industry.

The capacity to enhance reserves is significantly more challenging than as little as five years ago. Exploitation is generally expected to continue, however, an enhanced role for various degrees and types of exploration is expected to commence. The energy frontier brings many new risks and complexity in the area of technical, political and the environment. These account for much of the changes in stimuli and capability that Professor Dosi states is required to facilitate further innovation.

Secondly, microeconomic trends associated with changes in the relative prices of outputs. Oil and gas prices are beginning to reflect the scarcity, importance and value of the commodities to society.

To attain concurrence on these factors of innovation would be easy. What is needed in oil and gas is a measure of innovativeness that could be applied to the oil and gas producer or to a specific JOC. As was mentioned in the opening paragraph of this post, the Preliminary Research determined that an appropriate measure of innovativeness is the revenue per employee of a producer firm or JOC. Differences in performance are imputed to be the overall net result of the investments, both organizational and science based capabilities, and innovativeness of the firms. To make an effective change in the revenue per employee requires a substantial effort to increase the output of the firm or JOC. We will contiue to use and elaborate on this factor throughout our remaining review.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Review Innovation Dosi Organization Research

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part I

We now begin a review of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Source, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation.” This was the key paper that was reviewed in the Preliminary Research report. As a result of the publication of this paper, Professor Dosi has gone on to become one of the premier authorities on business innovation.

Professor Dosi’s article discusses the role of innovation in the market economy and assumes companies in a free market are willing to invest in science and technologies to advance the competitive nature of their product offering or internal processes. The key aspects of Professor Dosi’s theories that make them directly applicable to oil and gas are the innovation theories application to earth science and engineering disciplines. These disciplines are key to the capability and success of oil and gas firms search, and production of, hydrocarbons. The investment in science and technologies is with the implicit expectation of a return on these investments, but also, to provide the firm with additional structural competitive advantages by moving their products costs and / or capabilities beyond that of the competition. Professor Dosi note:

Thus, I shall discuss the sources of innovation opportunities, the role of markets in allocating resources to the exploration of these opportunities and in determining the rates and directions of technological advances, the characteristics of the processes of innovative search, and the nature of the incentives driving private agents to commit themselves to innovation.

We have asserted in People, Ideas & Objects that higher commodity prices are a re-allocation of the financial resources towards the innovative producer. This is reflective of the changes from the easy energy era, to one that will be dominated by the earth science and engineering capabilities of the innovative producer. What is necessary is for producers to build People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification which will enable them to align their resources towards innovation. That alignment being the movement of the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy to the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication framework of the Joint Operating Committee (JOC).

One of the difficulties in reviewing this paper is the comprehensive nature of its content. I recall how difficult it was to review during the Preliminary Research report, and it appears to have only maintained its degree of difficulty. The content of the paper is accurately reflected in this following quotation.

The discussion will aim to identify (a) the main characteristics of the innovative process, (b) the factors that are conducive to or hinder the development of new processes of production and new products, and (c) the processes that determine the selection of particular innovations and their effects on industrial structures. 

Recall two of our four research questions are to determine if the processes of innovation are able to be reduced to a quantifiable and replicable process, and, does the JOC facilitate the means to innovate. It would appear to me that the selection of this paper to review these research questions. Was the reason we are / were able to answer these difficult questions. Professor Dosi notes:

There are two major sets of issues here: first, the characterization, in general, of the innovative process, and, second, the interpretation of the factors that account for observed differences in the modes of innovative search and in the rates of innovation between different sectors and firms and over time. 

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Innovation Review Research Dosi

What is Structuration?

The Preliminary Research Report reviewed a variety of papers that fall under the topic of Structuration. What is this and why is it important to People, Ideas & Objects and the innovative oil and gas producer. Here are excerpts from the review and how they affect this project.

Professor Anthony Giddens initially published “The Constitution of Society: Outline of the Theory of Structure”, Berkeley, University of California Press and his theory is well articulated through the following excerpt from “Using the Structurational Model of Technology to Analyze an ERP Implementation” by Olga Volkoff, of the Richard Ivey School of Business.

From the perspective of structuration theory, adaptation is the joint effect of the actions of individuals and the institutional structures within which those actions take place. Structures such as business strategies, organizational culture, reward and control systems, patterns of communication, and professional norms both enable and constrain the daily activities of people, but do not wholly determine them. At the same time, while individuals can choose to act in ways that will either reinforce or alter those structures, their choices are not independent of the structures within which they take action. This “duality of structure” - the recursive (re)production of institutional structures through the ongoing daily social practices of individuals - allows change to emerge in ways that are not wholly predictable. 

I think within this quotation we see the reasoning why the oil and gas producers have such difficulty in meeting the demands of innovation. The Joint Operating Committee holds the “actions of individuals, and the institutional structures” that are not recognized by the ERP systems that are available in the marketplace. Therefore you have two disparate organizations, the JOC and the bureaucracy, operating in two different structures, creating conflict and contradicting one another.

Giddens’ theory of structuration is further define by Professor Wanda Orlikowski’s 1992 comments: “the duality of structure refers to the structure of social systems: human actions create a social systems institutional properties and these properties then serve to shape future human actions.” The notion of structuration has three aspects.

• It refers to a social process that involves the reciprocal interaction of humans with the structural features of an organization. 
• Human actions are enabled and constrained by structures, yet these same structures are the result of previous actions.
• Structural properties mediate human action and, at the same time, are reaffirmed through human use. In other words, institutional properties are both the medium and the outcome of interaction.

The Preliminary Research report looked at structuration from the perspective of how the current oil and gas organizational structure is defined through the social, legal and environmental influences that provide that structure, and of how the organization in turn provides structure to the social and human elements. People, Ideas & Objects are focused on building ERP systems that identify and support these organizations.

The JOC has explicit legal, ownership, financial and procedural authority and control of the field operations as the standard of operations and conduct in oil and gas, on an international basis. Financial investment in an oil and gas property qualifies for participation on the committee where the operational control is agreed to and implemented. This research asserted that this operational control has significant implications on the internal operations of the participating organization. The facility design, capital budget, legal agreements and the decision making processes are constrained, Giddens’ theory would suggest, by a variety of forms and structures that comprise the basis of operations for the entire industry.

As Thomas Davenport noted in his paper “The Strategy and Structure of Firms in the Attention Economy” 2002,

Strategy and structure are mental constructs, important not in themselves, but for their impact on the people in the organization. Strategy and structure are also the vehicles for focusing attention. 

Clearly stating that by moving the compliance and governance frameworks of the bureaucracy to be in alignment with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks of the JOC. This realignment will eliminate the conflict and contradictions that occur between the two organizational constructs. This realignment will also increase the attention and focus of the individuals involved within the producer firm and the JOC, and by moving compliance to be in alignment with the operational decision making authority, accountability is enhanced. Lastly, as we will document as this review progresses, innovation is enabled.

Another key component of Giddens theory is that there is an inherent risk of failure if the progress of one element is out of step with the other two. Society, organizations and people need to move in lock step to avoid failure. This has been explicitly interpreted for the purpose of this research that the progress of society and people is either inhibited or facilitated through the actions that form the organizations. Currently individuals and society are dictating larger volumes of energy be sourced and provided by the market. If the bureaucracies that exist today, are unable to meet these demands then we will most certainly see failure.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Accountability Governance Innovation Management Research Review

Oracle - Adopting a Successful IT Strategy

A quick break from our review of the Preliminary Research Report, the Draft Specification and subsequent research to pick up an interesting point of view on technology. Oracle Vice-President and Fellow Frank Buytendijk talks about the application of technology to the organization.

In my own professional development, I’ve gone full circle. Twenty years ago, I started out being an MIS developer, but in the last number of years I have spent a lot of time on the soft side, looking into subjects such as impact of behaviors, values and culture. 

I have come to the conclusion that in order to successfully adopt such a strategy paradigm, you need to have a solid enterprise architecture. So I have gone from IT to business and back to IT. In the end that is only logical. Since the dawn of mankind, the key to progress has been in technology. A spear is technology, and it changed the way we hunted, the types of animals we could hunt, and the productivity of our hunting. We need to adapt to technology instead of the other way around in order to be successful. When the circular saw was invented, it became better to bring the wood to the saw instead of the other way around.

An interesting development in the thinking involved in ERP systems. One that I think summarizes the position of People, Ideas & Objects in building the Preliminary Specification. Taking the advanced Information Technologies and applying them in new ways to the Joint Operating Committee.

The moment we think technology should adapt to the organization, things start to go wrong. We will try to apply the circular saw to the wood. Unhandy, not to mention dangerous. Translated to modern IT, it leads to costly, inflexible solutions that don’t do what you want — and we’ve all seen our share of those.

Basically, we have forgotten that the way organizations look today is based on the constraints of yesterday. They are as technology-dependent as we’d like to prevent today. The moment we apply modern IT and adapt it to the organization, we are doing two things wrong. We are not improving the organization, and we are using unfit technology (the old technology had a much better fit).

Essentially stating that new technology needs to address new organizational constructs. So when People, Ideas & Objects use Cloud Computing to solve the networked effect of participants in the Joint Operating Committee, we are applying new technology to new organizations. Or when we use Oracle’s new Fusion Applications, which will be announced later this month, to identify and support the Joint Operating Committee, we are applying new technology to new organizations. We have chosen to let IT take a leading role in supporting the successful and innovative oil and gas producer.

The role of IT in your strategy is a choice. If you choose IT to have a leading role, you should let yourself be led by IT.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Oracle Strategy

McKinsey, When Failure is not an Option

McKinsey Consulting are publishing a three part series on what they describe as the Joint Venture (JV). Entitled “When Failure is not an Option: Making Joint Ventures work for capital projects.” The article notes the role of JV’s in oil and gas and other industries, JV’s are of course one in the same as the Joint Operating Committee (JOC), the key organizational construct of People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification.

This paper provides further support for the development of the Preliminary Specification and the research that has been conducted by People, Ideas & Objects. It is satisfying that the worlds number one consulting firm are publishing these types of articles. Prospective users and  members of the Community of Independent Service Providers need to see this type of support to ensure their efforts are put towards providing success for the innovative oil and gas producer.

Joint Operating Committees are initiated for a variety of reasons, to reduce capital risk, to include other producers throughout the aerial extent of the property, or to include needed resources and capabilities. Industry has established a culture around using the Joint Operating Committee that is reflected in many of the processes that are used. This culture has developed as a result of the Joint Ventures that are systemic throughout the industry. Whether it’s through agreement, the Operating or Accounting Procedure, partnerships are what the Joint Operating Committee was designed to reflect. McKinsey states;

Historically, project developers have relied on the operating versus non-operating partner construct. However, companies are also increasingly leveraging JV constructs as a way to bring broader expertise into the project, build local talent and industries and retain sovereign ownership. In the oil and gas industry for example, a major project is likely to include a “supermajor” international oil company (for whom this project is part of a very large portfolio), an independent (who may be betting the company on this project), a passive investor (with a purely financial focus), and a national oil company (owned by the government where the project takes place). 

The Draft Specification has specific attributes that resonate with this perspective. First there is the enhanced participation enabled by the Partnership Accounting module. This module deals with the various ways in which partners may contribute to the Joint Operating Committee. Noting in the quotations example the passive investor, national oil company and international oil company each have differing costs and contributions. Permitting each of the firms to contribute fully, in their own unique way, to the successful development of the project. Secondly, the participants that are noted in the McKinsey quote, independents, start ups, international and national oil companies, are the targeted market for the People, Ideas & Objects software applications. Having each of the partners within a JOC with the same software development capability is a necessity, and the key deliverable of People, Ideas & Objects.

Noting the need for change, McKinsey details what is required for these organizations to deal with the enhanced participation enabled by the Partnership Accounting and other modules of the Draft Specification.

On top of the massive scale and obvious technical complexity, these new, multi-operator constructs

• increasingly embody multi-cultural perspectives (both corporate and sovereign),
• frequently represent divergent strategic priorities for the individual owners,
• generally struggle with the governance and performance management challenges associated with any multi-parent structure and
• often lack a single point of accountability for key decisions.

Addressing each of these points has been the topic of discussion in our Review. Having differing types of participants and cultural influences within the Joint Operating Committee is becoming commonplace. We had determined that each participant could pursue their own unique strategy within the property. We developed the Military Command & Control Metaphor to deal with the governance and performance management challenges. And lastly addressed the accountability for the decisions that are made within the JOC and the producer firm. Most importantly, the Draft and Preliminary Specifications are developed to address and resolve these very issues.

Next, consider that the “new generation” of project JV has multiple layers, as both the owners and contractor teams rely on individual partnerships to deliver the project. As this phenomenon evolves, it should be no surprise that we see an explosion of risk and management complexity, given the sheer number of stakeholders involved and the more sophisticated tools and processes needed to deal with project intricacies.

In the Resource Marketplace module of the Draft Specification we have included the service industry as critical elements of the success of the innovative producer. McKinsey are right to suggest the level of risk and complexity will increase further as a result of having the need to develop the support industries. Innovation at the producer level needs the service industries to be intimately involved in developing the products and services the producer demands.

Studies show that about 50 percent of all JVs do not succeed. Moreover, studies of large capital projects indicate that cost overruns from 50 to over 100 percent are common. So, when we consider this double-barreled risk of often-unsuccessful JVs managing often- unsuccessful mega-projects, we recognize that the difficulty project JVs have in aligning and operating effectively is a major reason why large capital projects often fail. Given the strategic importance these projects represent to participating partners, it is clear that JV organizations must be effective if a project is to meet expectations for predictability and performance.

There we have it, the world’s number one consulting firm clearly stating that joint ventures fail due to the difficulty in aligning and operating effectively. People, Ideas & Objects, its prospective users, the Community of Independent Service Providers through the Draft Specification are moving the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy into alignment with the cultural, legal, financial, operational decision making and communication frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. Laying the groundwork for the producers involved in the JOC to be successful. McKinsey quote a Harvard Business Review article that reflects these elements are necessary at the commencement of the JOC.

In their seminal article in the Harvard Business Review, Banford, Ernst and Fubini suggest four areas on which to concentrate the early planning and launch of any JV:

1. Strategic alignment. This ensures that each partner’s disparate goals, priorities and business models are recognized and reconciled.
2. A “loose-tight” governance model. This ensures that each partner’s needs for accountability and control are met, while at the same time, the project’s need for independence and authority is also respected.
3. The economic interdependencies between the project JV and each partner. They will impact the extent and means by which human, technical, and other resources are invested in the project.
4. Building the project organization. The parent organization should contribute their best people to the considerable challenges a major project presents, overcoming the frequent perception that such assignments are not always the best path to promotion.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Review Accountability Call-to-action

Eliminating the Conflict

In the Preliminary Research Report, in addition to the advantages of using the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) we listed the disadvantages of the conflict between the JOC and the traditional hierarchy. What becomes clear in listing these disadvantages, is the overriding focus on compliance and governance by the hierarchy. Tax, SEC and Royalty requirements at times appear as the sole focus of the organizations. The operations within the JOC are a distant second in terms of dealing with the business of the producer.

I am speaking of course from the business perspective dictated by the use of the ERP system of the producer, not the technical perspective of the earth science and engineering production operation. The separation between the administration and the earth science and engineering focus within the producer is something that is being eliminated in the Draft Specification. Lets call this well known phenomenon of “no one reading from the same page”.

Oil and gas operations are unique based on their geographic and geological makeup. Applying blanket corporate strategies to these operations was possible in the easy energy era. In today’s marketplace the need to have unique operational strategies for each oil and gas property is a necessity and is accommodated in the Draft Specification. What is not needed is the conflict and confusion within the producer that is as a result of no one reading from the same page.

One of the breakthroughs from the research People, Ideas & Objects has conducted is that the differing operational strategies that are employed by each of the producers in a JOC are possible and appropriate. Each producer has a unique make up of assets and strategies and those can be enabled through the use of People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification. Without the systems needed to support these differing strategies, the confusion and conflict will only grow, potentially in exponential ways.

The conflict between the separation of the compliance and governance of the hierarchy and the five frameworks of the JOC are reflected in each of the following points.

Introduces political and bureaucratic conflict.

This is the first and most damaging aspect of no one reading from the same page. When strategy, operations and administration are all moving in different directions within the organization, conflict is the result. The solution in the Draft Specification is provided by moving the compliance and governance from the hierarchy and aligning them with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks of the JOC.

Compromises and muddles internal decisions.

What may be ideal strategy to optimize the property may be unknown to many of the decision makers within the producer firm. The operational decision making resides with the JOC. The decisions made by these organizations are not communicated effectively through the producer firm. Time necessary to make decisions and the bureaucracy have the effect of slowing the capacity of the producer.

Lacks the direct support from the hierarchy.

When no one is reading from the same page, it seems that the administration is moving in different directions from the technical groups. For cost reasons, having everyone reading from the same page isn’t a luxury but a necessity.

Successes and / or failures are not identified, shared or learned explicitly by any of the participating organizations. Knowledge is held tacitly, limited amounts of knowledge is codified or make explicit.

As decisions and strategies are confused, the ability to learn from the decisions is lost. Innovation is an iterative process based on the success and failure and the history of the property. In a science and applied engineering business that requires more scientific effort for each barrel of oil produced, the decision history and understanding of the underlying knowledge of the property become necessities.

Eliminates initiative and innovation. No tolerance for risk taking or experimentation that is required for innovation.

Building on the previous point regarding success or failures, when no one is held accountable for the decisions that were made, initiative and innovation fall to the sidelines.

No regulatory or internal financial reporting requirements.

The standard reporting of an interest in a JOC is fairly standard. People, Ideas & Objects have published a Technical Vision of how Information Technology will change in the near future. This Technical Vision foresees a substantial increase in the volume of data that is available to a producer. With the Performance & Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules, the producer can expand their use of this data in innovative ways.

The hierarchically based organization is an impediment to future progress.

This has been discussed by many. Although People, Ideas & Objects subscribe to this thinking, we are offering a viable solution by recognizing the Joint Operating Committee and developing an alternative governance structure in the Military Command & Control Metaphor in the Draft Specification.

Capacity to replace reserves has become logistically, operationally and organizationally constrained.

The long term perspective of a producer firm is reflected in their reserves. To expand their reserves a producer has a scientific capability, that in addition to their reserves, are its critical competitive advantages. These capabilities are the differences between success and failure.

Capacity to meet the market demand is diminishing.

The overall effect of these points is that the ability of the industry to expand its productive capability has stalled. As the world has more people entering the middle class, the lack of market supplies of energy will bring significant societal issues to all concerned.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's Review Accountability Development Failure Innovation Organization