Showing posts with label Trends. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Trends. Show all posts

Monday, May 12, 2014

The Value in Technology

I have spoken many times here on this blog about the maturation of the Information Technologies that we are using at People, Ideas & Objects. It is that maturity of the technology that enables us to undertake the large scope and scale of our project. And many of the technologies and companies that appear to be generating a lot of interest in the capital markets are focused around the development of social networks and big data. These two areas are calling into question whether or not the technological industry is getting itself into another bubble where valuations and perceptions of value are getting out of sync with the real opportunities. These are my thoughts in terms of what I see.

I think the real value in technology is in the application of Information Technologies infrastructure to the business model of an industry. Much in the way we are doing it here in People, Ideas & Objects, the user community and service providers. This has been done in other industries and will happen in every industry as time passes. This trend, known more or less as disintermediation is the updating of the business model to include the Internet and remove the bureaucracy. Both are good things and provide value for the industry for all concerned. This is where the value in the technology business resides. It is in the “old” technology companies that provide the mature Information Technologies that will see their involvement in this business. The Oracle’s, the IBM’s, Cisco’s, and Intel’s.

In terms of the social networks they are probably here to stay. Some like Twitter and LinkedIn have been able to establish themselves in the business arena. And therefore will be able to build value outside of the “social” space. As for the rest, as it was in the 1950’s and 1960’s to show home movies as a fad, companies like FaceBook may be wholly dependent on a fad of exchanging useless bits of information with other people. Professor Herbert Simon coined the phrase “A wealth of information creates a poverty of attention.” FaceBook may want to adopt the byline “A wealth of FaceBook friends creates a poverty of friendship.” More innovation comes from FaceBook everyday and that keeps the masses interested. At some point there will need to be some point to the exercise and I think that day is coming soon.

If someone approaches you with a product that is in the “Big Data” field, run. Like Y2K they both have three syllables. I don't think thats a coincidence. There is something about naming conventions and three syllable product names are code for those in the know, to stay away. If anyone finds a bit of information that provides value for a business from “Big Data” then I will be the first to be surprised. In the Preliminary Specification there are the Performance Evaluation and the Statistics & Analytics modules to apply analytical thinking to the data set in a Joint Operating Committee or a producer firm. This is not “Big Data,” this is only the practical application of the tools to the data streams that have always existed in oil and gas. Don't let anyone sell you on the concept of “Big Data” becoming a force for generating value in the oil and gas industry. Its not going to happen and the need to spend any money on this initiative is approximately equivalent to what you should have spent on Y2K, nothing.

So that is how I see the Information Technology business. The real money is in the traditional industries that will use the mature technologies in new business models that disintermediate the bureaucracy. And the real money will be made in the area of higher profitability in these traditional businesses. The old school technology companies will come out alright as well. Just don't look for too much excitement from your investments in them.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. And don't forget to join our network on Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.

Friday, April 09, 2010

Focused on the Risk

A quick posting today. Number six of our "Focused on" series.

The Risk

The risk is that if we don't act in a timely fashion, the global productive capacity of the oil and gas industry could decline. We are already at a stagnant level since 2005, to decline would be a serious issue that seems so unnecessary. Exxon has stated that $20 trillion in capital is needed over the next 20 years to meet the market demand for oil and gas. I think we should organize ourselves first, otherwise we risk wasting time and money. Organizing ourselves around the Joint Operating Committee, the legal, financial, cultural, communication and operational decision making framework of the global oil and gas industry.

If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and email me. And if your a potential user of this software, and possibly as a member of the Community of Independent Service Providers, please join us here.

Technorati Tags:
 

Sunday, November 22, 2009

Eric Schmidt's Google IO Keynote

Dr. Eric Schmidt, CEO of Google presented the keynote at the Google IO conference. Many of the things that he says are consistent and applicable to work being done by this community. What I want to highlight in this post is the maturation of the underlying Information technologies. We entered this decade with the misguided belief that IT systems would collapse due to some storage related issues with the date. The final nail in the coffin of tech careers came with the 2001 dot com meltdown. The one constant throughout these issues was the focus on technology. Technology fails when its presented as the reason for change. In many ways as a result of the fallout of these technical failures, the belief that technologies day had ended became the standard thinking of people outside of technology companies.

This software development project focuses on the business issues inherent in the oil and gas industry as the justification for change. In addition, are the structural economic changes in play during this time of renewal. Schmidt agrees;
And let me tell you that it's time, it's time for us to take advantage of the amazing opportunity that is before us.
Yes now is the time when all the planet's line up. The technology, the business environment and society demand a greater efficiency. Schmidt notes in terms of the maturity of technology.
Why is it time? Because people are frustrated. They're tired of the complexity of all the systems that have been built up over the last 20 years. They do not work.
Schmidt then talks about an interesting characteristic of innovation. That innovation always happens elsewhere. Great ideas come from everywhere. That confirms what we have learned about innovation in the Preliminary Research Reports findings. Professor Giovanni Dosi notes the endogenous and exogenous forces of a firms innovativeness. The role of science and its development need to be the focus of the oil and gas producer. In an iterative loop scientific capability enables the innovations, and in turn those innovations advance the science. Major impacts to the science, as Dr Schmidt notes, usually happen elsewhere. The need for the scientific capability of the producer firm has to be mirrored through the industry and the service suppliers.

In a fast moving and innovation driven oil and gas industry the necessary resources need to work together. With the escalating demand of the sciences in each barrel of oil equivalent, and the retirement of much of the industry brain-trust. Building separate and mutually exclusive capabilities in each oil and gas company has to cease. The Resource Marketplace Module deals with these and other issues, such as who owns the Intellectual Property (IP) of the science and innovation.
Scalability and Power is just at the beginning of getting this right. The message is that this is the real beginning of the real win of cloud computing. Of the real win of applications. Of the real win of the Internet. Which is changing the computing paradigm - the one we have all grown up with - so it just works. It works no matter what device you are using, whatever operating system your using, as long as your connected - even if you are not connected - your online and have everything you need.
I'm not one to highlight the technological aspects of this software development project. The focus of People, Ideas & Objects is on the business attributes of changing to the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct. However, Users need to know that the time and technologies maturity is now. Voices like Eric Schmidt, who has also been the CEO of Novell Networks and Sun Microsystems, is able to provide the necessary credibility for the users to join me here.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

IBM's advertisements

Many of the newspapers have been sporting a series of ads from IBM. The first of these is "A mandate for change is a mandate for smart." You know that a trend is well ingrained when the large suppliers are on board. With their recent announcement to purchase Sun Microsystems and being on the same song page that we are, there may be hope for their future.

They not only are on the same page, but they also get it, comments like this are the appropriate mindset for the economic conditions and times that we find ourselves. 
Right now - today - leaders of businesses and governments everywhere have a unique opportunity to transform the way the world works. 
The means that IBM suggests this is possible is;
First, the world is becoming instrumented. Imagine, if you can, almost a billion transistors for every human being. Sensors are being embedded everywhere: in cars, appliances, cameras, roads, pipelines... even in medicine and livestock.
Limiting the People, Ideas & Objects application to a technical perspective we see IBM's comments are consistent with our technical vision
Second the world is becoming interconnected. Like people, systems and objects can now "speak" to each other, producing oceans of data.
A further extension of our technical vision in which we note the crush of data will begin with the introduction of IPv6. I also like the comment about people, systems and objects and the similarity to our People, Ideas & Objects name. 
Third, all of those instrumented and interconnected things are becoming intelligent. They are being linked to powerful new back-end systems that can process all that data, and to advanced analytics capable of turning it into real insight, in real time. 
At times I find it as difficult to figure out if IBM is selling something or talking about something in the future. I think I should cordially welcome them to the vapor-ware market. There comment that they want you to join them in building a smarter planet. Welcome to the party IBM, pull up a chair and start pulling some weight if your serious. 

Technorati Tags:

Monday, March 23, 2009

Workforce 2020

Another Strategy + Business article talking about the impact of Information Technologies on organizations success. (Click on the title of this entry) This "Leading Ideas" article is subtitled;

For many companies, success in the next decade will depend on how well they implement information technologies that transform when and how people do their jobs.
People, Ideas & Objects falls well within the scope of this article. The work force is changing, mostly as a result of the changes driven by the current poor economy. I would expect that this economic trend will be augmented and supported by further calls to change driven by IT. This article provides us with an understanding of the scope of the challenge that is in front of us.
If business decentralization is a long-running trend with more stutter-steps than successes, it’s primarily because the technology to make decentralization work deftly has yet to be perfected or adopted by skittish organizations unwilling to fully take a chance on the unproven. But by 2020, innovative competitors — and inevitable gains in remote, mobile, and virtual devices — will make it impossible for most companies to deny that information technology is profoundly reshaping the workplace. By then, in many businesses, workers will no longer be bound by geography or by clocks.
First off the understanding that an innovative mindset is to try many things and discover many of the reasons that it won't work. These will be applied in this development process and enable us to approach this challenge constructively. This applies to the oil and gas industry and specifically to the earth scientists and engineers that will / are finding their volume of work growing.

The article rightly notes the geographical and time driven needs of a nine-to-five existence will become a thing of the past. The Draft Specification considers the "always on" and greater flexibility in a workers schedule are necessary for the future. Weather this is a demographic change or a reality brought on by the futile need to be in your office at 9:00 is unknown. I think the motivation to do so will be as a result of the existing technologies and the reality of the economic consequences of not changing. How this happens is also captured in the following;
The blended workforce. Over the next decade many employees won’t be employees at all; they will be temporaries, contractors, contingent workers, outsourced workers, freelancers, and, in business-to-business transactions, customers. Today, there are more than 42 million independent workers in the United States, or about 31 percent of the workforce.
The trend is well on its way and unstoppable. This is more of a quality of life issue with respect to the workers within the various industries. It should be asked how the oil and gas industry, already challenged with, a shortage of workers, retirements, increased workload per barrel of oil and gas and now competition on a worker quality of life issues. Good luck trying to hire people who are expected to use SAP or other bureaucratic supporting systems. But then again, I am biased. This trend will also bring new issues into play.
With outsourcing sure to be even more common in the future, managers will have to pay attention to project hand-offs and coordination costs between partners.
Something that should be considered is the specification and design of the People, Ideas & Objects application modules.
To keep their blended workforce happy, they will also need to create interesting work in an engaging workplace and pay workers’ invoices on time or risk exacerbating turnover, creating yet another fissure through which knowledge can drain.
As I indicated yesterday, the oil and gas producers have much to gain in getting involved in People, Ideas & Objects. Progress is being made on a day to day basis in Internet time. That is to say the accelerated pace of change of the Internet is the time table this project is following. I'd like to think the producers are progressive enough to start pulling some of the weight of this project.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

New Growth Theory

In an Op-Ed by Thomas Friedman in the New York Times entitled The Inflection Is Near? Friedman asks if the economy is undergoing a fundamental change.

What if the crisis of 2008 represents something much more fundamental than a deep recession? What if it’s telling us that the whole growth model we created over the last 50 years is simply unsustainable economically and ecologically and that 2008 was when we hit the wall — when Mother Nature and the market both said: “No more.”
Professor Paul Romer of Stanford University wrote his Reason Magazine 2001 article on New Growth Theory . People, Ideas & Things were the new elements of economic growth. Replacing the traditional economic growth variables transportation, communication and financial resources. 

That's the reason or justification for calling this project People, Ideas & Objects. Its about new growth in the energy industry. Using the Joint Operating Committee to define new and innovative ways of making the oil and gas industry more profitable and productive. Please join me here in taking the Draft Specification to the next level, the Preliminary Specification , and know that I am looking for the People to make this real.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

McKinsey on Creative Destruction

This article (click on the title of this entry) is a discussion with Richard Foster, a former McKinsey consultant and author of the book Creative Destruction: Why companies that are built to last under-perform the market - and how to successfully transform them".

Some time during the past few years we seem to have forgotten many of the lessons that we learned about the business cycle. That we were now sophisticated enough to suggest that the elimination of the down cycle was within our toolkit of economic control.

Let’s start by looking back. In the 1970s, we had the “Nifty 50”—invulnerable companies that couldn’t possibly lose, and of course they all did. It will be the same today; there will be surprising losers, and survival will come down to simple things, like cash and margins. If you’re a low-margin company without a lot of cash or perhaps with too much leverage, you will not make it. Someone will figure out how to do better.
In the oil and gas industry we have a lot of firms that are in the situation where they have leveraged themselves into losing propositions. We have the piggies, where I have highlighted these firms folly. These firms will fail. Companies like CNRL have incurred so much debt ($26 billion) the last time they reported and $3 billion in working capital deficiencies. How will they survive a long down draft of economic activity? They can't and that is what the process of renewal will undertake to do for the managers that deceived themselves about their control of the business cycle.
The market moves much quicker then the companies are able to change. A process of renewal is therefore necessary in order to make the changes demanded by the market moves. It is critical there be a clear definition of the market and firm in an industry. The Draft Specification designates a clear separation from the market and firms based on the research conducted by Professor Richard Langlois.
There can be periods—5, 7, 10, even 15 years—when that isn’t the case, [firm performance exceeds the market] but corporate performance always reverts to a lower level than the market because the economy is changing at a faster pace and on a larger scale than any individual company so far has been able to do without losing control. That’s the challenge: to create, operate, and trade—to divest old businesses and acquire or build new businesses—at the pace and scale of the market without losing control.
I have incorporated the ideas of Professor Langlois to define new organizational structures. These also require a new division of labor in order to expand the productivity and performance of the industry as a whole. We have limited resource and much to do, if we do not consider these important issues we might best leave the situation to the bureaucracies that exist today. Please review this research if you feel change is needed.

The renewal of companies within industries is well captured in the next quotation. I don't know why it is necessary for the current governments to stop these changes, but using the taxpayer money to prop up old zombie corporations is, to me, a waste.
New, young companies that have conserved cash and have solid and often expanding margins surge ahead. When this happened in the ’70s, companies such as The Limited, The Gap, Home Depot, and John Malone’s TeleCommunications Inc. sprung from the burned forest. After the crash of 1987, Microsoft, Oracle, and Amgen took off. Then in the ’90s, we had the Internet companies. Creation will happen again and will again leave behind the big guys trying to rely solely on operations.
It is also suggested that our economic systems have failed. Those with political agenda's are suggesting that something involving greater input by government is required. President Obama is also suggesting that he has the means to balance his budgets within his current term, clearly he sees things that are not there. Nonetheless the capitalist system is by far the best method of organization, one that deals with the failures and builds anew.
Equity was a very clever invention, and we are not going to give it up. This is the way people are. This is the way commerce works and will continue to work unless capitalism ends. And that won’t happen, regardless of what you read in the press.
Technorati Tags:

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Shell's van der Veer get's it.

First off I need to declare that I am a Shell brat. My father was employed with Shell Canada for over 33 years and became one of their happy annuitants. I have been raised, fed and clothed by his work at Shell, by far the best oil and gas company in the world. This is for one and only one reason, it hires the best people. I am only disappointed that I was unable to work for Shell during my career, however, I look back fondly at the times in high shool that I worked in the mail room after grade 10 and their geological lab after grade 11.

Van Der Veer has captured the proper perspective and attitude for the oil and gas industry.
Energy demand will double between now and 2050,” van der Veer said today in a presentation at a Houston energy conference. “People like to have electricity and they like to drive in cars.
This is not a political issue, it is not a business issue, its a responsibility of the oil and gas industry that needs to get done. Doubling the demand for energy is probably correct, irrespective, it is our duty to meet the markets demands. What we have been consumed with these past 10 years is maintaining the status quo stock options, bonuses, salaries and perks for management. At least that is the case in CNRL, Petro-Canada, Encana and Nexen, our four little pigs. 

Does anyone suggest that we maintain the hierarchy until 2050? Of course not. Why is it acceptable, in this time of change, that we keep the failed and ineffective bureaucracy? Other then the bureaucracy hanging on to its failed ways, no one would reasonably suggest that the bureaucrats continue on to 2050.  Things are certainly different at Shell.
The Hague-based Shell, the world’s third-largest oil company by market value, is among a handful of petroleum producers that isn’t cutting spending this year on exploration and refineries in response to the $105-a-barrel decline in oil prices.
Keeping the past alive is for those that think our best is behind us. Join me here, and lets continue the journey to at least 2050.

Technorati Tags:

Monday, November 24, 2008

Two groups who need People, Ideas & Objects.

AP is reporting that the large and small producers in the oil and gas industry are experiencing some systemic difficulties. The large producers are able to generate large cash flow, and indeed have large bank balances. However, recent declining and negative reserve trends are now causing their production to decline. These accelerating decline curves are a direct reflection on their ability to find and produce more oil and gas.

On the other end of the spectrum the small producer is challenged by the inability to generate or raise any cash to begin to address their growing needs. This of course is as a result of their small asset base and the current low oil and gas prices. On the positive side, reserves are able to be increased at will. The reverse of the situation of the larger strata of the industry. To me this is not news, but a reflection on the way things have operated in the industry for many decades. The scope and severity of the problem comes down to the large producers declining production profiles.

Another issue that the entire industry faces in the short term is the size of the asset write downs caused by the today's lower prices. Based on the prices of the commodities it is fair to assume that producers were able to capitalize 100% of their costs associated with exploration and production since 2004. These costs are now subject to the auditors testing of value, based on the reserves. Potentially we may see the industry reflect large losses on their write downs to fair value.

Over the past 20 years the small producer has struggled to keep the doors open. Just as many small enterprises in other industries experience. Testing the risk profiles of small producers would result in the conclusion they are at stratospheric levels. Leading to the skill and courage of the investors and management, just to survive. Small producers have the inability to provide any returns for their investors for many years. The simple act of building a producer has to consider the many millions of dollars needed to increase the production profile. Many of these millions go to the simple act of keeping the lights on. The overhead of the firms is notorious for getting in the way of the investors expectation of receiving some value from the firm. Granted their will always be the capital gains that the investor could make over the life of building the firm. But their capital gains are not that spectacular and they should expect and receive more of the value they provide.

I have always marveled at the discussions that are made around the companies reserve reports. Reports on the field activities that have no concept or consideration that those operations have to support the administrative and management of the firm. In a public company this discussion takes on a much larger concern as the overhead costs of a public firm push the administrative costs well beyond what is possible for the management of the firm from an engineering and earth science point of view. The Private Equity movement that began in the last decade is symptomatic of the huge compliance and governance costs that a small public producer has to offset before there is anything left for anyone else. Please review the Compliance & Governance module of the Draft Specification for further information in how the compliance and governance is handled.

How is it that People, Ideas & Objects can help in this area? From the perspective of a large producer I see the problem as an issue of focus. The firm needs to simplify their strategy to something that will make money for the shareholders. This blanket strategy may not be appropriate for all of the properties or Joint Operating Committee's (JOC's) they have an interest in. (I attribute this as the source of the firms lack of "focus.") To say that there is conflicting strategies of the producers representing the JOC is obvious, and one of the sources of how problems get resolved is through identifying and resolving these contradictions and conflicts.

One of the advantages of moving to the People, Ideas & Objects system is that the JOC is able to set the strategy irrespective of the individual producers "global" strategy. Enabling each and every JOC to be optimized for their best operating and performance strategies and tactics. Providing the much needed focus that the large producers can not find. This strategy optimization in the JOC is a direct benefit of aligning the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks with each of the producers compliance and governance frameworks.

The banks, investors and money markets may have an interest in the producer or the JOC itself. Securitization of the individual interests in oil and gas will be necessary to fully optimize the innovative stance and increasing reserves of the industry.

Therefore the mix of producers in the JOC will help to mitigate the producers size issues for the entire industry. The large producer can partner with the smaller producers to balance out the needs of the property. Recall that the Partnership Accounting module in the People, Ideas & Objects system is based on the contributions of the individual firms represented. If a firm has a specialty in a certain regional geography, it can then agree with the partnership that the costs of those specialties goes towards satisfying some of the commitment from the company to secure their interest. In other words. The small and large producers are able to earn their interest in the property through their contribution of capital, expertise and / or land position on an all in valuation basis. If a geologist were to prove their value in the marketplace by finding commercial volumes of reserves. Then their ability to secure elements of the interests in the producing assets he / she is directly involved in creating.

The last point of the previous paragraph violates the first order of all oil and gas managements oath of allegiance. (I'm trying to be funny.)  Recognizing Intellectual Property (IP) is the exact opposite of the situation that exists in the energy industry today. Particularly the large firms do not want anyone to hold any form of IP as it conflicts with their needs to find people to employ and is (incorrectly) believed to be a leakage of value from their organization.

This is the 21st Century. We have the manner of all economics being re-aligned on the basis of new and more effective organizational structures. Those that believe in the bureaucracy, of any industry, are effectively being cut down to nothing in this market. The current economic climate is the same situation that affected the Former Soviet Union in 1989. The methods of organization could no longer sustain the demands of the people and failure was the result. Our system of organization has reached its limits of growth based on the bureaucracies inefficient efficiencies.

So the sooner we say good bye and good riddance, the sooner we can achieve the multiples of our current standard of living. As Jonathon Schwartz at Sun Microsystems says, you have to stop to change direction. These points are addressed in the Resource Marketplace and Research & Capabilities modules. If we expect to deny people the rights they earn in thinking through the big problems of how we can solve the oil and gas industries problems, then we are eliminating ourselves from the entire economic equation of the future. Our choice, and those that don't want the People to hold the trademarks, patents and copyrights should research which way is the best for the oil and gas industry to continue. We're going this way.

This issue is also addressed in the People, Ideas & Objects system. The competitive advantage of a producer is their physical producing assets, land base and scientific and engineering capabilities and capacities. Ownership of the capabilities and capacities, (the current situation) I don't think provides the industry with the value they think they attain. Building huge, mutually exclusive capabilities in each and every producer has increased the level of redundancy in the industry to a ridiculous level. Note also the large producers effectiveness of using these capabilities and capacities in finding and producing oil and gas. People, Ideas & Objects is the better way.

The producer who researches, develops and manufacturers their own drill bits is at a distinct disadvantage to the other producers who have manufacturers providing drill bits based on a collective need across all producers. I don't see too much difference in this example from what a firm is doing today with their geological talent. The alternative is hiring from a pool of highly qualified and talented scientists for application to a specific issue in one JOC. This has advantages that are directly beneficial to the future oil and gas producer. Once the geologist has completed their work, there may be no more work from that JOC in that area for his specialty again. He will have to keep thinking of how better to get the oil or gas out of the ground, (his job) which will form the basis of his new, and far more valuable to him, IP. Why employ him for 35 years and promise a retirement benefit that Wall Street will only take away from him.

The most effective change that the People, Ideas & Objects system provides the industry is an alignment to the cultural basis of the business. The JOC is the business, and the business is the JOC. Recognizing these facts in the IT that identifies and supports the JOC is a necessary realignment of the industries interests. A realignment that will fuel the innovation and further development of the critical sciences that are underlying the business of oil and gas.

With respect to the large and small producers that I started in this post. The alignment removes the conflict that the industry has with the development and ownership of Intellectual Property. It enables the large producer to use their cash flow in a manner that is more consistent with the needs of their JOC's producing properties. And the small producer has the ability to sell more of the talent and capability that is a necessary part of the industry makeup to financiers and investors. Both sides appear to me to be winners.

From the investor point of view, the fact that the systems will be supported through the levying of a fee on the basis of $ / BOE / year means that the larger producers will be paying the largest part of the freight in terms of the People, Ideas & Objects software development costs. Producers that are small and have no production would be use the system for free and have the Community of Independent Service Providers, that are a key part of the People, Ideas & Objects community, available to help mitigate the large associated costs of running a start up oil and gas concern. Please see the Compliance & Governance module for further clarification of how this is implemented in the system. And recall, that ideally the investor is the one representing the ownership interest of his / her share at the virtual JOC table.

Now is the time for these ways and means of operating be adopted. What we are witnessing is economic history. Producers MUST become more efficient and begin the process of rebuilding the industry from a more efficient and effective means of organization. To say the industry is collapsing is best reflected in Canadian Natural Resources Ltd impending demise. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, November 18, 2008

And the transition begins.

Creative destruction in its purest form is beginning to operate in the oil and gas industry. I'll start with the destruction aspect of this phrase. The transition from the structured hierarchy to the new science based producers has begun. In Canada we have the majority of oil and gas companies failing. This will become more and more obvious in this next phase of the market meltdown. The preliminary symptoms of the transition are evident today. Here is the CEO of mid-sized producer Anderson Energy Ltd.

"We have seen significant, unprecedented changes in capital, equity, commodity and currency markets in the past few months and ongoing concerns about the global credit crunch," said president and chief executive Brian Dau in a note released with third-quarter results.
As a result of these events Anderson Energy is reducing its capital expenditures, and financing some of the remaining expenditures through the sale of some properties. Expect to hear a lot of companies beginning to do these types of things for the next two years. As these firms continue to slide in their organizational performance, aggravated by the decline in commodity prices, producers are faced with the ultimately difficult decision of what to sell to make the next quarter.

The creative part will come into play when the new and innovative science based producer will be able to purchase these assets at very large discounts. Comparing the metrics of the bureaucracy to the performance metrics of the innovative oil and gas producer will make the assets far more valuable in the hands of the innovative producer. Innovators will be able to purchase these assets based on the poor performance of the property. Turnaround the property and make the asset more valuable through applying new science and ideas to the property.

Recall the competitive advantage of the innovative, scientific based oil and gas producer is in their land base and their technical capabilities. Having anything more in terms of an in-house capability should be considered overhead. These firms are defined and supported through the software we should be building here to ensure this transition is conducted in the most positive manner.

Clearly I don't expect any existing producer will want to use this software to run their organization. They have made it clear they don't want anything to do with the changes that are implemented in this new way of operating the industry. Which is fine, theirs is a road that ends quickly in a brick wall. Nonetheless the ability for these firms to hang on by implementing this software I don't think is possible. Therefore they will cannibalize themselves in a very short and desperate process.

And in related news, Penn West Energy Trust also made news as it's the largest royalty trust organization of the Canadian industry. It too is having financial challenges that lead the management to state:
"With the number of opportunities that everybody anticipates coming up in the next little while, the key is going to be discipline and maintaining focus in terms of what our acquisition appetite looks like," Foulkes said.
Even having the CEO going out as far to say the following:
"I don't want to hang my hat on any number," chief executive Bill Andrew said during a conference call. "But we wouldn't continue to operate in a position where we were borrowing money from the bank to distribute to the shareholders."
I'm sure their shareholders are enlightened by their CEO's assurances. If these producers are in such need of capital. After several years of high prices, and are unable to survive without cannibalizing themselves, you know that the transition is near. Particularly when it is someone who has been able to successfully put together companies in the range of multi-billion market capitalization's such as J.C. Anderson has done in the past. Cutting at a critical time as this is obviously the wrong thing to be doing. You can not change the spots on a Leopard either.

If you find yourself in the position of being severely affected by the market meltdown. I would be pleased if you gave some thought to joining this project. I am looking for 100 people to take the Draft Specification and enhance it to the level of the Preliminary Specification. This is a ground floor opportunity for those that may find they have lost a lot, and don't know where to turn in the future.

I believe the only sustainable competitive advantage for an individual is to have some Intellectual Property owned or accessible. Such as this project is. This is the key value proposition that an individual has to offer a producer. I would encourage you to review this blog as much as you need, find an area where you are familiar and have some ideas on how to improve these areas in the application. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags:

Friday, October 31, 2008

Recommitting to Sun Microsystems.

Sun put out their third quarter earnings today. Those that have seen them probably share a concern that I have about the stability and durability of the company and its products. Clearly we are a Sun customer. Every product we are proposing to be used in the People, Ideas & Objects application modules is a Sun product first and foremost. I feel that they have "some skin in the game" and are therefore easily motivated to make their technology work, and they have.

We can't afford any of the finger pointing between vendors that we have seen in the past systems. That game is unacceptable to the users, developers, account managers, project managers and investors in the oil and gas industry. This expectation is also in line with the companies genetic makeup. They are an engineering firm, first and foremost with most of the technologies being far superior to the competitions. The only complaint I have of Sun is that I wish they would hire some people to take out the garbage. And what I mean by that is they have a tendency to solve the big problems and unfortunately the other less problematic tasks get overlooked. This is not a significant problem but one that shows up in their marketing at times.

Speaking of marketing, the open source initiatives the company has implemented are the reason that the risks in committing to them are minor. We would still be able to use and improve Java for our needs even if the companies receivers were hounding the researchers. Try that with an IBM or HP.

Jonathon Schwartz the President and CEO is an avid blogger and has been quoted in innovation in oil and gas many times. His blog post today provides a wealth of information that is more informal then the statutory reporting, and hence useful. Comments like these from Jonathon are the ones that make me feel that sticking with them carries little to no risk.

What went well within the quarter?

The biggest highlights were the performance of our Solaris based, chip multi-threading (CMT) systems, which again grew a whopping 80%, year over year. These systems leverage awareness of Solaris/Opensolaris and our outstanding ISV portfolio, and are driven by extreme energy
efficiency and virtualization - attributes we just multiplied with the launch of our newest CMT system: the T5440.

Simultaneously, our Open Storage systems also delivered a great quarter, up 150+% year over year. These systems, known by many as Thumpers, are amplified by the awareness of our open source ZFS file system, a technology at the heart of Sun's storage business. You'll be hearing more about Open Storage at a launch event we're holding on November 10th. If you're technical, and you want some hints about what we're about to unveil, click here.

And finally, most of our software business grew - including MySQL, Java, alongside Solaris, management and our virtualization products. As we've been saying, open source is a great distribution model - and it feeds a great revenue model.
Now, how is Software growing if you give everything away?

We make our software freely available to enable its distribution to the farthest reaches of the market - which we then monetize with commercial subscriptions and services, alongside optimized hardware systems (like Open Storage, above). We continue to reach customers that have already settled on our software - the process of selling to them is simplified by the fact they're already using our core products. And unlike most university students (who typically have more time than money), our paying customers view downtime or administrative complexity as more expensive than a software subscription (that is, they have more money
than time).

Thus, customers will pay, and continue to pay for access to enterprise grade features, along with mission critical support and maintenance - the Software business is both a license, subscription and services business.

To understand the total size and value of Software at Sun, you need to look at billings alongside our multi billion dollar support streams - remembering that a lot of our software is sold as a subscription service (remember, it's open source). In addition, you have to recognize that how much a "Systems Service" support contract is attributable to software is entirely subjective (we don't price them separately to customers). It's like asking how much revenue a mobile phone manufacturer should attribute to their operating system - you're not charged separately at the point of sale.
Wait, you make money off Java?

Yes, it's among the most profitable technology products at Sun - and improving. Java's one of the most popularly distributed pieces of Software on the internet, we distribute over a million Java run times a day to users across every OS and geography on PC's. That helps us reach a very broad community of users and, more importantly, developers. We have some exciting news coming up around these distribution volumes - and their value to us, and others.
Noting the importance of the customer in their product offerings...
What is Sun focusing on?

Strategically, we continue to focus on two core areas - creating the world's largest, and fastest growing developer communities - for whom we build the products, services and technologies on which they'll build their products and services. With brands like MySQL, Java and OpenSolaris - we measure and drive their adoption very aggressively.

And secondly, we deliver compelling commercial offers to those deploying applications - across a diversity of industries - through commercial subscription, services and optimized system products. That is, we sell data-center systems, software and services.

We're focused on today's customers with our current products and services, and tomorrow's customers with our investments in freely distributed software.

Operationally, we're focused on execution - in the field, in the labs, and on behalf of our shareholders. Innovation loves a crisis, even when the stock markets don't - and Sun's positioned very well to supply the platforms on which the next generation of clouds will be
built.
When I look at the firms offerings and see the stock's price, a mere $4.0 billion market cap, I shake my head. I think Sun has put themselves out in front of the competition. And I think that the firm is dedicated to doing the right things right, which makes them particularly difficult to understand. Open source and proprietary systems are the tools of building a strong firm for the long run. The problem for people investing in the firm is that the story doesn't necessarily fit into a $4.0 billion package. Given time the firm will be able to better articulate their story. This will only happen after the general public can better understand the difficult concepts that the firm operates with.

Technorati Tags:

Wednesday, October 29, 2008

The Economist on Cloud Computing.

A "special" report has been written and is being distributed by the Economist magazine. The download is being provided through sponsorship from AMD. The Cloud Computing paradigm is the method that will be used to host the People, Ideas & Objects application. The Economist starts with the following quote.

Information Technology is turning into a global cloud accessible from anywhere, says Ludwig Siegele. What does that mean for the way that people conduct business? p. 1
Google is the best example of a firm that has all of their applications delivered in this fashion. People, Ideas & Objects has been using Google Apps for our Domain for over one year now and have found this model of application delivery provides real value. I recently noted that we also evaluated SalesForce.com and will be implementing that application into our organization to better manage the producers involved in this software development. The cloud model is sound and provides some unique attributes that are not available in other Information Technology architectures.
The rise of the cloud is more than just another platform shift that gets geeks excited. It will undoubtedly transform the information technology (IT) industry, but it will also profoundly change the way people work and companies operate. It will allow digital technology to penetrate every nook and cranny of the economy and of society, creating some tricky political problems along the way. p. 1
This can seem to be much of the same claims about technologies influence in business. To suggest otherwise is difficult to prove. I would argue that our current market meltdown will be comprehensive in its elimination of the manner in which we conduct business. For it is the large bureaucracies that have failed in meeting the needs of society. If we are to re-build our organizations brick by brick and stick by stick, the use of new IT architectures will be necessary. Bureaucracies have had their day. The following quotation shows how difficult it is to foresee our way through our current difficulties by using an application like SAP.
Corporate IT has  always promised to make companies more agile. In the 1990s many companies re-engineered their business processes when they started using a form of software  called  enterprise resource planning (ERP), which does things such as managing a firms finances and employees.  But once these massive  software packages were in place, it was exceedingly difficult to change them. Implementing SAP, the market leader in ERP, is like pouring concrete into your company, goes an old joke among IT types. This  helps  to  explain  why  in  many firms IT departments and business units have traditionally been at loggerheads. In recent  years  tensions  have  worsened. Companies must grapple with ever changing markets and regulations, yet IT budgets are being cut. Many firms now have a huge backlog of IT projects. pp. 11 - 12
Why would People, Ideas & Objects using this new architecture be successful? I think the primary reason we would be successful is that our approach is not based on these technologies. That is to say we are not focused on the cloud to make the changes and provide the value to those that will use our application. Using the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) as the key organizational construct will bring into alignment the cultural, financial, legal, compliance & governance and operational decision making frameworks of the industry. This will also have the effect of bringing those participants in the JOC closer in terms of conducting joint operations, which is the global and systemic way of the industry.
Again, the software industry has been promising this for some years under the banner  of  service oriented architecture, discussed  in  an  earlier  chapter.  Yet  the adoption of SOA has been slow and many projects have failed, says Chris Howard of the Burton Group, a consultancy. The reasons are not just technical but cultural; for example, some business units are not used to sharing data. Cloud computing will help resolve  some  of  these  problems.  Many web based services are built to be integrated into existing business processes. p. 12
Adam Smith proved the theory of division of labor and its impact on production and productivity. Economically we have taken division of labor and specialization to substantial levels. To take it to the next level will require alternate means of organization and a much finer level of how work is performed.

In the Draft Specification it is also assumed that the oil and gas producer will be focused on their core competitiveness. The innovative oil and gas producer will concern themselves with their reserves, land base and most importantly their earth science and engineering capabilities. Providing hardware and software in which to operate the firm is about as distant to their competitive advantages as one can get.
What eff…ect will all this have on the nature of the firm? If IT systems really allow companies to become more modular and flexible, this should foster further specialization.  It  will  become  even  easier  to outsource business  processes,  or  at  least those parts of them where firms do not enjoy a competitive advantage. Companies will increasingly focus on their "core" and shed the "context", in the words of Geoffrey Moore, managing director of TCG Advisors. p. 12
This makes the approach to how the industry operates change fundamentally. The need to have different ways of operating, ways in which we can align the culture of the industry, is what the Cloud provides. These means of operation are a natural and necessary part of the oil and gas firm. People, Ideas & Objects should be considered the "industry operating system" of the oil and gas industry.
Both trends could mean that in future huge clouds which might be called  "industry operating  systems" will  provide basic services for a particular sector, for instance finance or logistics. On top of these systems will sit many specialized and interconnected firms,  just  like applications on a computing platform. Yet this is only half the story. The cloud changes not only the plumbing and structure of firms and industries,  known  as  the  "transactional layer", but also their interactional layers, a term coined by Andy Mulholland, chief technologist of Capgemini, a consultancy. He defines this as the environment where all  the  interactions  between people  take place,  both  within  an  organization  and with its business partners. p. 12
In the Accounting Voucher of the Draft Specification. It specifies the move away from transaction processing as the key functionality. Transaction processing is to a large extent expected in any system, and is not a competitive differentiation of the People, Ideas & Objects application. What is necessary and is built into the module is the transaction design that will enable the analysis of costs and the manner in which the work gets done.
Companies may not have much choice but to open up, says Mr Mulholland. Employees will increasingly resist constraints on their use of technology, and they will have a growing need to reach beyond the corporate firewall. Twenty years ago, he argues, 80% of the knowledge that workers required  to  do  their  jobs  resided  within their company. Now it is only 20% because the world is changing ever faster. "We need to be open to new and unknown connections with people and content," he says. p. 13
This last point shows cloud computing may become more of a main stream technology. Microsoft announced on Monday October 27th their Azure platform. Ray Ozzie of Lotus Notes fame said:
"We are in the early days of a transformation to services across the industry," said Ozzie at the conference.

Technorati Tags:

Friday, October 17, 2008

British PM Gordon Brown, gets it.

I have a quote from our local paper, The Calgary Herald, regarding British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's call on world leaders to create a new financial architecture to replace the Bretton Woods system.

Sometimes it does take a crisis for people to agree that what is obvious and should have been done years ago can no longer be postponed, Brown said in a speech at the London offices of Thomson Reuters.
and
"I'm slightly less terrified today than I was on Friday," said Princeton University economist Paul Krugman, named as the winner of the Nobel prize in economics on Monday. "We're going to have a recession and perhaps a prolonged one but perhaps not a collapse."
What governments, in this current economic meltdown, seem unable to say is no to any request for funds. If they had learned to say "no" many years ago to the guy with no income no job or assets (ninja) who wanted a mortgage, then we wouldn't be in this state.

I first raised the issue of a credit crisis in a blog entry entitled Beyond the Red Horizon. In the entry I suggested that CNRL would have difficulty in getting their heavy oil production on line due to the looming credit crisis and severe credit levels that the company holds. Particularly the $3.2 Billion working capital deficiency. (What were they thinking?) The companies shares are down $41.76 since I wrote those comments. Trading at $40.47, a mere shadow of its former self. I think they should get prepared for the real hair cut that will soon affect the company. (Yes, even though we have lost $30 trillion globally.)

This firms management have placed the company in a situation where they have absolutely no options. They will soon be unable to meet payroll, unable to pay their field service providers and many other normal business operations that are now beyond the scope of the companies capabilities. No matter how you add it up, the situation is unworkable. Yet Murray Edwards, one of the many Vice Chairman of the firm, says absolutely nothing in this recent interview with Forbes. He has a responsibility to his shareholders to be a little clearer on this topic, don't you think? These kind of comments only let the credit crisis monsters get an eye on where to go next. If you have shares in CNRL get out before they are run into the ground. And thank Murray Edwards on your way out.

The preliminaries in the fowl winds of this credit crisis are now over. The bullets have all been fired and now the serious business of this meltdown will begin. I would expect the rolling and violent stock markets will continue with a strong downward trend. What will now begin to happen is the currencies and value of the countries will face the same types of horrendous devaluation forces. (Bankrupt countries like Iceland.) I don't like discussing these issues, it is however somewhat comforting to be knowing what will happen next, and I hope to be providing some forewarning.

In all of this calamity it is important to note that opportunities are opening up to everyone. This is a brand new clean slate with the wealthy people like Murray Edwards unable to save their money from destruction, and no time or energy to pursue these new opportunities. Get in and earn yourself a healthy position in some kind of assets that will eventually be sold or auctioned. We are going to need to re-build the industry brick by brick and stick by stick. Just as Gordon Brown stated, "Sometimes it does take a crisis for people to agree that
what is obvious and should have been done years ago can no longer be
postponed."

Join me here in building this software to manage the oil and gas industry. We have limited choices, use manual systems, give SAP another try, or build this software and re-build the industry for those that are prepared to take these opportunities.

Technorati Tags:

Friday, October 03, 2008

The Future of Capital.

Bruce Nussbaum who writes the "Innovation Design" blog for BusinessWeek has a fascinating article on the effects of the soon to completely collapse Wall Street. Entitled "Congress Readies to Vote on the Financial Package -- Get Ready for the Post-Wall Street World." Of which I encourage that type of thinking, I also recommend subscribing to his blog as it is always rich and strong with content. The starting paragraph of the current Rotman school magazine frames his point of view quite nicely.

BY THE DAWN OF THE 21ST CENTURY, a revolutionary change had taken hold in the realm of value creation: physical and financial assets were no longer the key factors of sustainable competitive advantage. Instead, leading companies like Dell, GE and Procter & Gamble depended on superior human and knowledge assets for their competitive edge. p.3
I have, and always will, assert that Intellectual Property (IP) is the only thing of value in the new 21st Century Organization. Either you own or have access to IP, is something that should be the first order of building a "new" business offering in your chosen field and industry. This is why my attitude regarding the Wall Street problems is to let them fail. As Professor Carolta Perez says, financial capital has done its job. It built the Information & Communication Technologies, now product capital has to rise out of the ashes of the financial capital industry. Financial capital is a badly over built industry that is primarily redundant to the needs of the world. When you see the panic that is occurring and understand that productivity in the U.S. is up in the second quarter by 4.3% on an annual basis. You see the dichotomy of the world in which we live. The old is collapsing like the former Soviet Union, and the new economy is now big enough and strong enough to lift all boats.
I’ve said it before: business people don’t need to understand designers better; they need to be designers, designing organizations in which capital of all types wants to congregate. As evidenced by the work of our own Richard Florida, their role is not unlike that of the mayor of a great city, who creates an environment in which multifaceted communities can all agree on one thing: that they wouldn’t want to be anywhere else. p.3
The entire magazine is devoted to these concepts. I highly recommend downloading the magazines from the Rotman school. As I read these three latest issues I may find more valuable information that I will post up on this blog.

Technorati Tags:

Tuesday, September 30, 2008

A new revenue stream.

In the back of my mind I have frequently thought there was a role in this software development project for governments. I have now determined that the reasoning for them to support this project is at least as strong as the argument I have made for the disgruntled oil and gas shareholder.

What's going to happen to the capital intensive oil and gas industry as a result of this credit crisis. Need I say more. It should be anticipated that many projects will be canceled as a result. Maybe even some voluntarily. I think in the first year or so the commodity prices will decline, not substantially from here, but remain depressed as a result of demand destruction. We know this does nothing to the reserve life index other then watch it decline further and further. Therefore I think by 2013 we may see the majority of the capital that was injected in the industry from credit and investors being replaced by the higher commodity prices that provide a reallocation of the financial resources for innovation.

To describe the routine that we will be going through in the next five years is not something that is positive. I hope that everyone can hang on to what they have, but these will be as difficult times, and may be much worse then the great depression. There is a purpose and reason for this pain, and it is so that we are motivated to move to a more efficient future. The quicker we get over the pain the better off we will be.

Why would this downturn be worse? Firstly it's more global then local. The Americans are showing the way, not because they are the worst off, but because they are always the first to see a problem and deal with it. Other countries in Europe, mostly, are in much worse shape then the States and yet, do not have the resilient character to pick themselves up as quickly. Those that profess the doom of the U.S. will be sadly mistaken by the events of the next five years. And how the events that come along will seem to favor the Americans, in which they will dominate the world marketplace for decades to come.

This is a failure of everyone and no one. The economic system that we depend upon is no longer efficient enough to feed and provide for the population. The basis of organizations, the hierarchy is unable to meet the demands of it. This is primarily as a result of its inability to change and innovate, and is a form of organization that is static. The auto industry can't change the cars they provide. The solution in the future will not involve a car. The energy industry can't meet demand for energy and the companies continue to see large declines in their reserves and production. These are the problems that are being represented in the credit crisis. Its an unsustainable way of life based on the way in which business operates. This is to a large extent the failure of bureaucracy, just as central planning was in the former Soviet Union.

In the 1700's Britain's population was around 6 million people. Life was terrible with mass hunger and overpopulation being the critical issues of the day. Professor Ludwig von Mises said the industrial revolution was the solution to world hunger and over population. Mechanical leverage from the industrial revolution provided Britain with the ability to grow to 24 million people and be very prosperous in the 1800's. It is this exact same situation we find ourselves in today. We have to re-organize and become far more efficient to feed and provide for the 6.7 billion of us. This will be done by the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) revolution.

Non the less, identifying this second stream of revenue may provide a large percentage of the capital necessary to meet our needs. In the Preliminary Research Report it was determined based on the Theory of Structuration of Anthony Giddens and Model of Structuration by Professor Wanda Orlikowski that software defines and supports the organization. The bureaucracies have, or will very soon, lose the ability to organize themselves and function. This is why we need to build this software and why the governments will need to financially support this project. 

After the collapse, if we are to attempt to resurrect the way that things have operated in the past. Then we will be unable to deal with our current difficulties and adjust. This adjustment will be fundamentally different then the previous five economic meltdowns. The last being the great depression. Today we are able to use the technologies to redefine the new organizations and ways that we are going to work. This isn't technology being implemented for technologies sake. This is now a necessity. We can regress completely to manual systems and live like barbarians, or build the systems that will define and support the organizations of our future. A simple choice.

This is where the second form of revenue is established in this software development project. Governments have a vested interest in ensuring their people are not harmed by this credit crisis. It is they who should act in concert with the previously identified disgruntled oil and gas investor. Both of whom are the direct beneficiaries of this application being built, and I am suggesting therefore they are two groups that share the responsibility of making this project real for oil and gas.

Now the government is certainly not only interested in the oil and gas industry. This principle will apply to all industries and in all walks of life. And that broader role is something that these governments should see quickly in terms of reducing the pain of the credit crisis.

So I am calling on the governments to work with the People in this project and provide some of the funding. This is the governments that have centers in their economy that are dependent on oil and gas, such as Alberta, and those that are part of a larger government, the Canadian, U.S. and other jurisdictions. The point I am trying to make is that some governments have a direct interest and some have an indirect interest in making this software available in the marketplace as soon as possible.

Ideally I would like to see the governments contribute the financial resources necessary to cover off the regulatory and royalty requirements of each jurisdiction represented in the application. I would also expect that the governments would provide an element of dollars that are necessary for the overall application.

Can everyone see how the hierarchy and its legacy continue for the next century? This is a time of renewal not of resurrecting dinosaurs. Getting in the car in the morning to drive to work is so unnecessary in the future. Does anyone expect these actions that are defined by using the bureaucracy should remain? I have provided a sound and workable vision of how the energy industry could function in the future. This is represented in the Draft Specification and consists of the eleven modules. Professor Carlota Perez states that the People need to know that the old ways can no longer sustain them before they will move to the new vision. That time is today, September 30, 2008 and this credit crisis will affect us for the next five years. We should move now.

If you know of someone that falls into either of our two primary revenue streams. Please send them the URL to this blog and the URL to this specific page and ask them to consider the role that software can take in making the "pain" that we will suffer less. And join me here.

Technorati Tags:

Monday, September 29, 2008

It's not enough.

The bailout package being discussed in the U.S. is not enough to fix the system. Keep the $700 billion and use it to help build the "new" systems after the failures are purged from the landscape.

Attempting to refill the toilet bowl as it's flushed is, and always will be, futile. The systems supporting our economy are no longer adequate to meet the needs of our economies. The way they are structured is based on many of the principles established in the 1930's depression era. Have we learned anything about economics since then? Has Information & Communication Technologies developed since then? Let the failure occur.

If we read Professor Carlota Perez, who's analysis has shown this is a systemic economic event. That has happened consistently over the past 300 years. We should welcome this decline for the opportunities that it provides. This turning is as violent and disruptive for a reason. Organizations don't change from the old technologies that brought the economies along. They have to collapse in order for the new players and organizations to rise from the ashes.

The entire world economy will be going through the same problems. Europe is stuck in an economy that is static since Margaret Thatcher, and she was only able to bring Britain into the 20th century. With everyone falling, the economic leaders will remain the economic leaders in the next era.

The energy industry is not immune to these events. We have seen some high profile oil-sands projects canceled for one reason or another. I suggest financing is not available. And as I have suggested CNRL's Horizon project will be one of those eyesores that quietly rusts in the middle of nowhere. When credit systems fail, capital intensive industries such as oil and gas will feel it. What should someone who has worked in oil and gas do after they have been laid off from the oil and gas companies? They should join me here in making this software that will define how the new oil and gas industry is rebuilt. Unfortunately this is the only way that business can make the fundamental changes from era to era.

One thing that is systemic in all of Professor Perez writings is the scope and speed of the new environment that we are moving towards. Very quickly we will see the focus of people move away from the housing and consumer focus that brought the system down. They will now understand and appreciate that the greatest miss-allocation of capital (the past ten years) is over and they can begin building a new and more prosperous life from the ashes. It's time to invest in those businesses that will lead the world out of the old economy.

I noted earlier that the Financial Marketplace may have seemed a bit of a stretch in terms of the changes that were proposed in the Draft Specification. With the events of the last couple of months we see that the banking system is inadequate for our future needs. New regulations and technologies will be introduced into the system that will mirror the changes I have proposed in the Financial Marketplace module. Professor Milton Friedman has this to say about the "crisis" we find ourselves at the beginning of;

Only a crisis-actual or perceived-produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes politically inevitable. Friedman 2002, Capital and Freedom.
This projects pace has slowed to a crawl. I am unable to move the project any further without the financial resources necessary to make this real. If there is any doubt in your mind as to the need for such a "radical" change, it should be put to rest by these recent events, and those that will be coming. If you know of someone in our revenue profile, an oil and gas investor disgruntled by the bureaucracy, send them the URL to this web log and encourage them to keep this project moving forward. And, join me here.

Technorati Tags:

Monday, July 28, 2008

The End of IT As We Know it

Click on the title of this entry to view an interesting Sun Microsystems Net Talk that was produced in October 2007. It has some interesting statistics and opinions on where the Information Technologies (IT) are headed.

For instance, the number of people that Sun employs is 34,500 and over 25,000 of those are not assigned a permanent office or working environment. Many work from home or work occasionally in meeting rooms. This is how I see most industries operating and particularly the oil and gas industry. The mandatory attendance in your office from 8:00 to 5:00 will change to a more flexible schedule. The oil and gas industry operates 24 hours a day and this will be reflected in people's schedules. Another reason will be the time zone changes in the area of operations of the producer. Fuel costs on the daily commute may also become a primary reason for this change.

Java has 6 million developers. One for every thousand people in the world. Java has been the number one programming language for a number of years so this is not surprising. The ability to source the numbers of developers that are necessary for this project should, as a result, be easily accommodated.

Other comments in the presentation were around the concept of the "Enterprise computing in the open network." The costs associated for each company to build the appropriate data-center for their needs is quickly outstripping what is reasonable from a cost point of view. The reason is the demand for processing during peak loads is causing the companies to source additional processing capabilities. This is the beginning of a trend that is discussed in this video. A trend that is the reasoning behind Sun making the claim that a firm will have 100% of its processing, applications and networks provided by service providers. This is also the basic assumption in the People, Ideas & Objects application.

In oil and gas having the hardware, applications and network in-house does not provide any competitive advantage. The innovative producer has the land base and physical assets augmented by their understanding and application of earth sciences and engineering capabilities. IT is a cost that is best handled on a service basis. And as the Net Talk points out, services hosted by providers on the Internet. The presenter, Bob Worrall, Sun's CIO points out that this trend will be the end of the traditional Intranet and Data-center. The role of IT within the firm will involve aggregating the relevant services and distributing them. IT will be involved in management of the service providers.

An area that Sun is addressing at this point in time is the area of access control and security. You can watch a good summary provided by Craig MacDonald. Sun Federated Identity is a component of the first module in the People, Ideas & Objects, the Draft Security & Access Control Module. A module in which we are layering the Military Command & Control Metaphor over the Joint Operating Committee participants and those that work for them. This module provides access to the IT resources necessary for People to do their jobs. Providing the producer with access and assurance that data and information are provided to only users that are authorized. This area is a key differentiating point of all other systems providers and the key reason that I have used Sun Products exclusively in the Security & Access Control Module.

Sun suggests that billing is the issue or impediment to full deployment of this changed IT environment. It is difficult to quantify and value every transaction in a service level offering. What I think is needed is an overall service that is billed, based on the size of the producer, that covers the associated costs that are incurred by People, Ideas & Objects in providing that service. This will have to be something that is discussed when we move toward the deployment of this application.

On a related theme, Cisco has a number of videos on YouTube about their new "Tele-Presence" product. Although expensive in comparison to video chat, I think Cisco has identified a market here. When you have large numbers of people needing to sit down in a meeting on a regular basis, the services of Tele -Presence would help in facilitating that communication. Although costly from the point of view of an unproven technology, I think it may pay for itself in reducing flight and accommodation costs, and increase productivity through better communications. Have a look.

Cisco Tele-Presence

Technorati Tags:

Sunday, July 20, 2008

McKinsey on Organizing for Value.

McKinsey have been able to provide a solid foundation for this software development project. This will be the 37th McKinsey article I have reviewed! (Click on the title for access to the document.) When it comes to organizational change and the impact of IT, McKinsey has invested heavily in this mega-trend and consistently gets it right. In applying this article to the oil and gas producer, strong support is given to the use of the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) as a key organizational construct of the industry.

This organizational blind spot, often combined with an excessive focus on short-term earnings, can produce unfortunate results, in our experience. Managers end up optimizing earnings goals at the expense of long-term growth and value creation. “We typically spend 80 percent of our time figuring out how to squeeze the economics, and only 20 percent on actual strategy, without numbers to back our decisions,” says one executive. Some readily admit to cutting back on value-creating projects in order to meet short-term earnings targets.
This is the systemic problem that all public companies face. Don't meet you targets for the quarter and you will be punished. Managing to these criteria becomes the focus and strategy that drives the management to perform at its best. It certainly leads many companies to focus on optimization at the expense of innovation and long term value generation. However, McKinsey are hitting on a key point with their definition of "value cells".
As a rule of thumb, value cells have standalone economics and must be relatively “homogeneous” in regard to their target market, business model, and peers—that is, they must have one target segment, one country or region, or one group of products. The trick is to create financial analyzes, such as P&L statements, as if a value cell were a stand-alone business. This is normally not done in a classic divisional structure, where each division’s financial's are an amalgam of different products, markets, and costs relating to shared assets. A useful litmus test is determining whether a value cell could be sold and whether there would be a clear market price for it.
A JOC does all the things that McKinsey define as required for a value cell. But their is more, McKinsey intimate that the value cells are somewhat separate from the divisional organization structure. Just as I have defined the boundaries of the firm and the JOC in the eleven module Draft Specification. The firm undertakes the role of establishing and attaining the financial targets, whereas the JOC develops the innovative ideas and builds value for the long term.
Value cells can easily coexist with the organizational structure of a division, which might need to take other factors into account, such as geographic proximity or economies of scale in common functions such as production plants, supply chain, or sales networks. As an overlay on an existing structure or a lens through which to view existing businesses, however, the cells facilitate strategic decision making.
An oil and gas firm may have hundreds of JOC's, this would cause the management workload to increase substantially. Not so McKinsey say;
In our experience, a company of above $10 billion market capitalization should probably be managed at the level of 20 to 50 value cells, rather than the more typical three to five divisions.
and
While managing so many value cells might appear to increase the CEO’s workload, the reverse is often true. Focusing more on single cells actually reduces complexity because managers find it much easier to identify and monitor the two or three operational metrics that truly drive performance, as well as to make decisions in a more straightforward way. In essence, the CEO can use value cells to take out a “disintermediation layer” between actual business decisions and the corporate planning process. Instead of aggregating strategies and economics into complex divisions and then spending lots of time understanding the overall strategy and performance, the CEO can take a larger number of more rapid, more specific, and more radical decisions at the value cell level.
This makes intuitive sense. The logic in using the JOC in the oil and gas industry is substantial. It is the financial, legal, operational decision making and cultural framework of the industry. Participants in JOC are motivated by financial rewards therefore concurrence can be easily attained. Today's Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) also enhance the expanded use of the JOC. In the Draft Specifications it is stated explicitly that the management role would increase in the redefined boundaries of the firm.
It’s worth noting that a value cells approach is meaningful only if a company has the courage to follow up on decisions to invest or divest. Managers must regularly scrutinize cells that destroy value and divest them if turnaround plans don’t materialize. They must nurture high-potential businesses aggressively and continuously. If competitors devote far more resources to a given business, for example, the real choice is exiting it or doubling down on the investment—not adapting marginally.
This however does not mean that our four little piggies can double down on their stock options. Which appears to be the only strategy in play. This next quote from McKinsey imputes the level of change that needs to be adopted within an organization. To benefit from value cells requires some major systems, organizational and people changes.

And that is what we have done in the eleven module People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification. Our motivation is to focus on innovation within the JOC. That is what the commodity prices are telling the producers, and providing the financial resources for, to innovate. As everyone generally agrees, the easy oil is gone and an earth science and engineering based capability is the new methodology of earning value in the oil and gas industry. As science and innovation come to influence each other, the speed of change will accelerate. The firms in the industry have lost the ability to keep up with the market demand for energy. Without the systems to support any organizational changes in place, we are relegated to manual systems or utter failure.
Using value cells to emphasize value management requires some obvious implementation challenges—creating better data, exerting pressure to collaborate, adopting incentives that reflect the value created per cell. The real change of culture and mind-set requires even more: instilling business managers with the feeling that the new process gives them more freedom and more resources for good ideas.
We also live in a time where the technologies, based on the People, Ideas & Objects Technical Vision, will conspire to overwhelm the unprepared producer with information. Recall that Nobel Laureate Herbert Simon stated "a wealth of information creates a poverty of attention."
Focusing corporate and divisional decision processes on value and growth isn’t simple, particularly when the activities that create value are embedded in large divisions. Companies that adopt a finer-grained, granular approach can better identify and manage their value creating assets.
The performance of the oil and gas producers stock option compensation costs is the only thing spectacular coming from these firms. They have abused the trust of the investors and poorly prepared their firms for the changes brought about by the commodity prices. Potential retirement is liberating them from responsibility. The oil and gas industry has changed fundamentally? Someone should tell the management.

Technorati Tags: