Professor's Baldwin and von Hipple IV B

In this entry I will highlight many pertinent points of Baldwin and von Hipple's research. Much of the context and content of their work is new, and as they state, not necessarily covered before.

However, to our knowledge, there has been no systematic thinking about the conditions under which each model is likely to appear, and whether each is expanding or contracting relative to the other two. To make progress on these question, it is necessaryto develop a theoretical framework that locates all three models in a more general space of attributes. That is our aim in this section.

People, Ideas & Objects is based on open collaborative innovation. Based on the modular Draft Specification as its starting point, the contributions of users is necessary to cover the scope of work undertaken in the oil and gas industry. This scope of work has never previously been undertaken due to the communication and design costs prior to the Internet were prohibitive. Only today with the Internet and the tools that are available can we seek to codify the understanding of "what" and "how" the oil and gas industry operates as. This codification is being captured here in the Preliminary Specification that will form the basis of the People, Ideas & Objects application modules. It is the technology that is enabling this to be undertaken. Use of the Joint Operating Committee was the hypothesis of this projects in the May 2004 Preliminary Research Report, and is therefore, the underlying reason that this project holds the promise of "resolving every administrative problem in oil and gas in the last fifty years." (Not my words.) It is the "aha" moment that people have when they realize the Joint Operating Committee is the key to enabling these performance and innovation based opportunities.

In the particular branch we are most concerned with, organizational forms and industry structures are taken to be endogenous and historically contingent (Chandler, 1962, 1977; Wlliamson, 1985, 1991; Nelson and Winter, 1982; Aoki, 1984, 2001; Langlois, 1986a, 2002; Baldwin and Clark 2000; Jacobies, 2005). Different forms may be selected to suit different environments and then adaptively modified. Thus organizational forms emerge in history and recede as technologies and preferences change.

I highlight the last sentence of that quotation as we are now at the point where changes can be implemented. Our economic challenges today require us to undertake these types of organizational changes. What has brought us to this point is no longer capable of carrying us further. And indeed we will fall further behind if these organizational changes are not implemented in a timely manner. For the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP) it is important to become involved in this project as its sustainability is represented in the fact that organizational forms do not change that frequently.

We have seen the 20th Century benefit from the work done by the hierarchy. Clearly society is better off today then if we had not had the model of organization we use so systemically in business today. We have also benefited from the use of computer technologies that have enabled the reach of the hierarchy to span far greater then previously possible. This is where the oil and gas industry became too focused on the hierarchy as opposed to the Joint Operating Committee. As companies employed greater levels of Information Technology, they began to focus on internal needs of the bureaucracy and avoided the business of the business as represented in the many Joint Operating Committee's of the firm. To address those JOC's it would have required to undertake the design that is being done in its first iteration in the Preliminary Specification. Baldwin and von Hipple note that the design costs and communication costs would be too great to overcome in any time prior to the Internet. Now these costs are substantially below 1/3 of 1% of the industry. Viable by any measure.

Finally in contrast to virtually all prior work except for Chandler (1962, 1977), we take an explicitly technological approach to the question of viability. Fundamentally we assume that in a free economy, the organizational forms that survive are ones with benefits exceeding their costs (Fama and Jensen, 1983a, b). Costs in turn are determined by technology and change over time.

Costs as represented by this projects Business Model are minuscule when compared to the revenue streams of the oil and gas industry.

Adopting Chandler's logic, we should expect a particular organizational form to be prevalent when its technologically determined costs are low, and to be ascendant - i.e., growing relative to other forms - when its costs are declining relative to the costs of other forms.

Today, design costs and communication costs are declining rapidly, and modular design architectures are becoming common for many products. In the rest of this section, we argue that these largely exogenous technological trends make single user innovation and especially open collaborative innovation viable across a wider range of innovation activities than was the case before the arrival of technologies such as personal computers and the Internet. We have seen and expect to continue to see, single user innovation and open collaborative innovation growing in importance relative to producer innovation in most sectors of the economy. We do not believe that producer innovation will disappear, but we do expect it to become less pervasive and ubiquitous than was the case during most of the 20th century.

To participate in this community, please join me here. And if you are part of our targeted market, please contact me here to financially support this community.

Technorati Tags: People's Baldwin Harvard von-Hipple MIT Innovation Value-Proposition

Professor's Baldwin and von Hipple IV A

Before the Christmas break we were reviewing a paper from Professor's Carliss Baldwin and Eric von Hipple. Our review was comprehensive as the majority of the material is pertinent to both the development of People, Ideas & Objects software and associated Community of Independent Service Providers, (CISP) and the innovative oil and gas producer. The title of the paper "Modelling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation". To date there are three blog posts reviewing this paper here, here and here. Reintroducing this work by reviewing the three posts, re-highlighting the papers abstract, and finally adding some of the papers definitions will help refresh our memory of this very pertinent work.

In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation projects. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with - and may displace – producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We argue that a transition from producer innovation to open single user and open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare, and so worthy of support by policymakers.

We see the value that this paper has to this community, not only in defining how this community operates, but also the validity for the CISP participants investing their careers, and how the innovative oil and gas producer can approach the scope of their organizational constraints. I expect to have the next installment of this paper completed within the next week. This involves the review of their analysis of the three different models of innovation, or section 3 "Where is each model viable."

It may also be of value to review our 2010 budget to see how the user within the CISP generates their own economic value. They are compensated for their work in designing and contributing to the development of the software. And secondly, their use of the finished software application is available to them as members of the CISP, free of charge. Their use of the software is part of the value adding services they provide to their innovative oil and gas clients. People, Ideas & Objects generates our Fees and Penalties from the producers that benefit from this software. These charges are assessed based on our business model.

Baldwin & von Hipple's Definitions

A single use innovator is a single firm or individual that creates an innovation in order to use it.

A producer innovator is a single, non-collaborating firm.

An open collaborative innovation project involves contributors who share the work of generating a design and also reveal the outputs from their individuals and collective design efforts openly for anyone to use. The defining properties of this model are twofold: (1) the participants are not rivals with respect to the innovative design (otherwise they would not collaborate) and (2) they do not individually or collectively plan to sell products or services incorporating the innovation or intellectual property rights related to it. An example of such a project is an open source software project.

A design is a set of instructions that specify how to produce a novel product or service.

A given mode of innovation is viable with respect to a particular innovation opportunity if the innovator or each participant in a group of innovators finds it worthwhile to incur the requisite costs to gain the anticipated value of the innovation. By focusing on anticipated benefits and costs we assume that potential innovators are rational actors who can forecast the likely effects of their design effort and choose whether or not to expend the effort (Simon, 1981; Langlois, 1986b; Jensen and Meckling, 1994; Scott, 2001).

Our definitions of viability is related to: the contracting view of economic organizations; to the concept of solvency in finance; and to the concept of equilibrium in institutional game theory.

In contracting literature, firms and other organizations are viewed as a "nexus of contracts,", that is, a set of voluntary agreements (Alchian and Demsetz, 1972; Jensen and Meckling, 1976; Fama and Jensen, 1983a, b; Demsetz, 1988; Hart, 1995). For the firm or organization to continue in existence, each party must perceive himself or herself to be better off with the contracting relationship than outside of it.

We define an innovation opportunity as the opportunity to create a new design. With respect to a particular innovation opportunity, each of the three models of innovation may be viable or not, depending on the benefits and costs flowing to the actors.

In terms of benefits, we define the value of an innovation, V, as the benefit that a party expects to gain from converting an innovation opportunity into a new design - the recipe - and then turning the design into a useful product, process or service.

Each innovation opportunity has four generic costs: design cost, communication cost, production cost and transaction cost.

Design cost, d, is the cost of creating the design for an innovation.

1. The cost of identifying the functional requirements (that is, what the design is supposed to do); 
2. The cost of dividing the overall problem into sub-problems, which can be solved separately;
3. The cost of solving the sub-problems;
4. the cost of recombining the sub-problems' solutions into a functioning whole.
   

Communication cost, c, is the cost of transferring design related information among participants in different organizations during the design process.

Production cost, u, is the cost of carrying out the design instructions to produce the specified good or service.

Transaction cost, t, is the cost of establishing property rights and engaging in compensated exchanges of property.

Please join us here.

Technorati Tags: People's Baldwin Harvard von-Hipple MIT Organization Innovation

Professor's Baldwin and von Hipple III

The third part of our review of the Baldwin and von Hipple paper focuses on the literature review. It is in this section of the paper that the issue of Intellectual Property is raised. Baldwin and von Hipple write what most people would consider to be factual in understanding how innovations are developed.

When taken together, the findings of all these empirical studies make it very clear that users have long been and are doing a lot of commercially-significant process development and product modification in many fields.

Let us first gain an understanding of what the authors define as Users. This user description is not different from what we are employing here at People, Ideas & Objects.

Users, as we define the term, are firms or individual consumers that expect to benefit from using a design, a product or a service. In contrast, producers expect to benefit from selling a design, a product, or a service. Innovation user and innovation producer are thus two general "functional" relationships between innovator and innovation. Users are unique in that they alone benefit directly from innovation. Producers must sell innovation-related products or services to users, hence the value of innovation to producers is derived from users willingness to pay. Thus, in order to profit, inventors must sell or license knowledge related to their new design, manufacture and sell goods embodying the innovations; or deliver and sell services incorporating complementing the innovations.

Users have unlimited access to the Intellectual Property that is developed by People, Ideas & Objects and the community. This IP, and all associated ideas, are a product of the User community and freely available for the user community to employ in their own service offering to their oil and gas clients. The only limitation for users is the ability to run the binary of the software is limited to People, Ideas & Objects exclusively. Also only licensed users who are active in the community will have access to the software, ideas and knowledge held within the community. Creating an exclusive service offering who's focus is to provide the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

The users then earn their fees in providing the services and software to oil and gas producers. Users are licensed to access this information based on their own skills and provide those services to their oil and gas producer clients at no charge for the software or the access to the underlying IP. (Users bill their clients for their services.) Clearly the involvement of a user within this community is critical to the success of the project, as we discussed yesterday. And this success provides the users with a means to pursue their career in the most effective manner that they see fit. Why do we do this.

Reexaminations of traditional economic arguments triggered by evidence of free revealing show that innovators generally freely reveal for two economically rational reasons. First, it is in practice difficult to effectively protect most innovations via secrecy or intellectual property rights. Second, significant private benefits often accrue to innovators that do freely reveal their innovations.

The Draft Specification is designed around eleven modules. Professor's Baldwin, Langlois and Williamson have defined the benefits of modularity and the importance of modular designs. Here the authors provide a good summary of how modularity fits within this project.

Modularity is important for collaboration in design because separate modules can be worked on independently and in parallel, without intense ongoing communication across modules. Designers working on different modules in a large system do not have to be colocated, but can still create a system in which the parts can be integrated and will function together as a whole. In small projects or within modules, designers can utilize “actionable transparency” rather than modularity to achieve coordination. When projects are small, each designer’s activities are “transparent” to his or her collaborators. In open collaborative projects, modularity and actionable transparency generally go hand in hand, with both factors contributing to the divisibility of tasks (Colfer, 2009).

Here in this last quotation is the real value of the CISP. The value of participating in this community is reflected in the name People, Ideas & Objects. Ideas are non-rival and therefore participation brings about the greatest attributes of ideas for all involved. Ideas are able to build on the prior knowledge and the many innovations and ideas that came before it. Having the communities ideas and innovation backed up by a user driven software development capability, only makes this more worthwhile for the members of the community and their oil and gas producer clients.

Building on arguments of Ghosh (1998), Raymond (1999), and von Hippel and von Krogh (2003), Baldwin and Clark (2006 b) showed formally that, if communication costs are low relative to design costs, then any degree of modularity suffices to cause rational innovators that do not compete with respect to the design being developed to prefer collaborative innovation over independent innovation. This result hinges on the fact that the innovative design itself is a non-rival good: each participant in a collaborative effort gets the value of the whole design, but incurs only a fraction of the design cost.

Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Modularity Innovation Baldwin Harvard von-Hipple MIT

Professor's Baldwin and von Hipple II

I want to expand on Professor's Carliss Baldwin and Eric von Hippel's paper that we recently started reviewing. I think this paper is critical in defining many of the attributes of this software development project, and will add value with new insight and information. Specifically, in applying the findings in this paper I hope to prove to the User community that this type of project is less risky from the point of view of them investing their time and efforts in participating. The pace of this paper's review will be thorough and complete. Limiting our review in this second installment to just the Introduction and Overview.

As background information, People, Ideas & Objects software applications are marrying the User groups that define their needs in the software, with the software developers. This relationship is permanent and maintains the project in a constant state of change based on the users innovations. Software is not a destination but is best considered a journey. Users of People, Ideas & Objects applications are those that use this software in combination with their own service operations. The Community of Independent Service Providers derive their revenue from both the producers that employ them for their services and from People, Ideas & Objects for the work the users do in designing, implementing and working on development of the software. Creating an environment where the users are key in every aspect and element of this community.

This change oriented and innovation based community will generate their own innovations. In addition the People, Ideas & Objects software needs to mirror the needs of the producers who are iterating on the earth science and engineering innovations involved in oil and gas. The point I want to make is the users commitment to this community involves substantial risk and a comprehensive career commitment. Of the three models of innovation People, Ideas & Objects and the Community of Independent Service Providers fall into the authors "open collaborative model".

Our analysis will lead us to conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation are modes of innovating that increasingly compete with and may displace producer innovation in may parts of the economy.

We will argue that when it is technologically feasible, the transition from closed producer or single user innovation to open single user or collaborative innovation is also desirable in terms of social welfare, hence worthy of support by policy-makers. This is due to the free dissemination of innovation designs associated with the open model. Open innovation generates innovation without exclusivity or monopoly, and so should improve social welfare other things equal.

This last quote is in line with why this project is called People, Ideas & Objects. It is derivative of Professor Paul Romer's new growth theory of People, Ideas & Things. Which states in the virtual world ideas can be used by many people without diminishing the value to anyone else. The important take away for me was that we are needing exponential volumes of ideas to expand our economy. How these ideas are vetted, developed and implemented is the topic of Professor Baldwin and von Hipple's paper and this software development.

Users need to understand that the success of this project is wholly dependent on their involvement. This paper provides evidence that this mode of open collaborative innovation is preferable, "should improve social welfare" and will be successful. Therefore mitigating their risks in investing their time and efforts in this community. I think this provides the user with the most sound and economic basis for their review of this project from the point of view evaluating their investment in this model. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's CISP Baldwin von-Hipple MIT Harvard

Professor's Baldwin and von Hipple I

Professor's Carliss Baldwin of Harvard, and Eric von Hipple of MIT have jointly published a paper that is of the highest quality and topical focus. Entitled "Modeling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaborative Innovation." Carliss Baldwin is someone we have followed closely on this blog. Her work has been in the area of Modularity, Transaction Costs and Thin Crossing Points and is incorporated in the Draft Specification, mostly in the Accounting Voucher module. You can find our review of her work by selecting the Baldwin Label on this blog. We have also reviewed Eric von Hipple's work here as well. A review of his book "Democratizing Innovation", (Free eBook here.) and an MIT video of his presentation. His work is mostly on innovation and we have incorporated some of his ideas in the Draft Specification. Specifically, use of his understanding of Intellectual Property (IP) and how it can be applied in communities such as People, Ideas & Objects. I will briefly discuss IP in this post and hopefully be able to write about it in greater detail in the near future. Nonetheless, these IP related thoughts are incorporated here in the way that People can join this project. Coverage of Professor von Hipple's work does not have a label to aggregate all the posts in this blog, however you can search this blog for his content.

I want to put all this material out in this post, and address more of the substance in subsequent posts. I think this paper is of the highest quality and very pertinent to the work that is being done at People, Ideas & Objects. The abstract of this paper says it all.

In this paper we assess the economic viability of innovation by producers relative to two increasingly important alternative models: innovations by single user individuals or firms, and open collaborative innovation projects. We analyze the design costs and architectures and communication costs associated with each model. We conclude that innovation by individual users and also open collaborative innovation increasingly compete with - and may displace – producer innovation in many parts of the economy. We argue that a transition from producer innovation to open single user and open collaborative innovation is desirable in terms of social welfare, and so worthy of support by policymakers.

Technorati Tags: People's Baldwin MIT Innovation Harvard von-Hipple

Carliss Baldwin - Mirroring Hypothesis

Carliss Baldwin - Mirroring Hypothesis

A series of 2008 Working Papers has been released by Harvard Professor Carliss Baldwin. (Click here to her page where all ten can be downloaded.) This first paper is "Exploring the Duality Between Product and Organizational Architectures: A Test of the Mirroring Hypothesis." This paper provides keen insight into many of the topics we need to better to understand in developing the People, Ideas & Objects application modules. As discussed in her paper we reviewed here, the mirroring hypothesis was a part of that paper, we now have the opportunity to review the mirroring hypothesis.

Before we begin I want to put forward the Cognitive & Motivational Paradoxes into the discussion as background for the discussion of the justification for radical change of the oil and gas industry, as considered in the Draft Specification. It is suggested in this paper that the rewriting of software applications from scratch has not been done. And I would suggest in the short period of time that software has been used in corporations limits the full scope of our understanding and experience of software. We have also not gone through a comprehensive market meltdown, as the one that we face today, an economic situation that I believe is the result of our inability to make the necessary, wholesale changes to organizations. And as such these changes are not only necessary for the economies to resume their positive attributes, but critical. If as I say in the above referenced blog entry, the constraints of code and customers are too large of a compromise in approaching this situation from an otherwise clean slate. These compromises are too significant to overcome the cognitive and motivational paradoxes. Now lets begin to review this very interesting paper. From a technology implementation point of view, the build up from a blank slate is the easiest approach to providing this value to the industry.

A variety of work has sought to examine the link between a product’s architecture and the characteristics of the organization that develops it. The roots of this work come from the field of organization theory, where it has long been recognized that organizations should be designed to reflect the nature of the tasks that they perform (Lawrence and Lorsch, 1967; Burns and Stalker, 1961). In a similar fashion, transaction cost theory predicts that different organizational forms are required to effectively solve the contractual challenges associated with tasks that possess different levels of uncertainty and interdependency (Williamson, 1985; Teece, 1986). To the degree that different product architectures require a different set of tasks to be performed, this work suggests that organizations and architectures must be aligned. p. 5

Alignment of the Joint Operating Committee's (JOC) legal, financial, operational decision making, communication and cultural frameworks with the compliance and governance which has been the sole domain of the bureaucracy, are what is achieved as a secondary benefit of this software development project. Our primary objective is to move the producer firm from a banking mentality to that which is based on the earth science and engineering disciplines; and to innovative off that base of knowledge. This is necessary in order to provide the energy consumer with the energy they demand. Referring back to the motivational & cognitive paradoxes, I would assert that the industry has been unable to meet the markets demands for energy, and almost all producers production profiles are in decline. This is further justification for the radical redesign of the oil and gas industry that is proposed in the Draft Specification.

While the studies above begin with the premise that a development organization must be designed to match the desired structure of a new product, a second stream of work adopts the opposite perspective. It assumes that a development organization’s structure is fixed in the short-medium term, and seeks to understand the impact on new product designs. This view was first articulated by Conway (1968) and is sometimes known as “Conway’s Law.” He states, “Any organization that designs a system will inevitable produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization’s communication structure.” The dynamics of this law are best illustrated in Henderson and Clark’s (1990) study of the photolithography industry, in which they show that market leadership changed hands each time a new generation of equipment was introduced.

I italicized the quotation of Conway's Law to highlight the fact that communication in the oil and gas industry is through the JOC. As we have achieved this alignment in the Draft Specification with the JOC's communication structure, the alignment of the organization will be better able to serve the primary (enabling the earth science and engineering) and secondary reasons (the enhanced innovativeness and performance) from this alignment of the industry. This is a material change to the Draft Specification in that the Communication Structure will be added as the fifth framework that the JOC provides the innovative oil and gas producer.

These observations are traced to the successive failure of leading firms to respond effectively to architectural innovations, which involve significant changes in the way that components are linked together. Such innovations challenge incumbent firms given they destroy the usefulness of the architectural knowledge embedded in their organization structures and information-processing routines, which tend to reflect the existing dominant design (Utterback, 1996). When this design is no longer optimal, they find it difficult to adapt. pp. 5 - 6

Again I assert that the reason for the rewrite is that the bureaucracy is unable to make the necessary changes to ensure the producer firms remain innovative and profitable. The inability to adapt to the increased amount of earth science and engineering necessary for each barrel of oil, is the beginning of the end of these bureaucratic organizational structures. I can not see them surviving these changes in the greater economy. And I am certain that the economic meltdown we are currently experience will ensure their demise. That is why we must begin the process of developing the software as described in the Draft Specification.

2.1 Product Architecture and Measures of Modularity

We have purposely defined a modular design structure from the work of Professor Baldwin but more specifically through Professor Richard Langlois. These are accurately summarized as follows.

Modularity is a concept that helps us to characterize different product architectures. It refers to the way that a product design is decomposed into different parts or modules. While there are many definitions of modularity, authors tend to agree on the concepts that lie at its heart; the notion of interdependence within modules and independence between modules (Ulrich, 1995). The latter concept is referred to as “loose-coupling.” Modular designs are loosely-coupled in that changes made to one module have little impact on the others. Just as there are degrees of coupling, hence there are degrees of modularity. p. 6

There is a further rather profound reason for moving to a modular structure. The Java Programming Language is most efficient in a loosely coupled or modular fashion. These have been the design theories that make the language so useful to the business community. As is mentioned elsewhere the secondary advantage of a modular system is that developers are able to focus on one module, as opposed to having to know all of the aspects of the system. This compartmentalization helps the developers and users to deal with the complexity of the system.

6. Discussion

I am particularly proud of the size of this community. It has been many years in the building and each day I am pleasantly surprised by its scope and scale. The most important aspect of this community at this time is their vested interest in this system and particularly their understanding of the basic ideas and issues. When you have this many people following the ideas in this blog, it reflects that we are on the right track. One other important point that may be off topic a bit, but the size of this blog is well over 600,000 words and reflects the basic idea of using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the oil and gas industry. So many words for just one idea. I can not wait to see what this community does with these ideas when they get finished with it. In this next quote Professor Baldwin notes the products architecture is comprised of more then the functions. 

Our results make an important contribution to the academy in several ways. First, they reveal substantial differences in the levels of modularity between software systems of similar size and function. The pairs we examine vary by a factor of eight, in terms of the potential for a design change to propagate to other system components. This result has significant implications for those who must design such systems. It shows that a product’s architecture is not wholly determined by function, but is also influenced by a variety of other factors, including the characteristics of the organization within which development occurs. The space of possible designs within which solutions are sought appears to be constrained by the nature of the context within which search occurs. p. 20

This communities influence on the Draft Specification and the building of this system will be like no other we have seen to date.

We should note that the mirroring phenomenon is consistent with two rival causal mechanisms. The first is that designs evolve to reflect their development environments. In closed source projects, dedicated teams employed by a single firm and located at a single site develop the design. Problems are solved by face-to-face interaction, and performance “tweaked” by taking advantage of the access that module developers have to the information and solutions developed in other modules.

Even if not an explicit managerial choice, the design naturally becomes more tightly-coupled. By contrast, in open source products, a large and widely distributed team develops the design. Face-to-face communications are rare given most developers never meet, hence fewer connections between the modules are established. The architecture that evolves is more modular as a result of the inherent limitations on communication. p. 21

Once introduced to the ideas of this software development project people can begin to see how things fit in naturally. Using the JOC is a very natural way in which the industry operates. The technologies today provide the ability to mitigate the effects of location specific activities. The virtual JOC being the ultimate manifestation of the way in which oil and gas investors can manage their operations.

Alternatively, our observations may be a product of purposeful choices made by the system architects. For closed source products, the sole aim is to develop a product that maximizes performance at a point in time.

The benefits of modularity, given the competitive context, may not be viewed as significant. By contrast, for open source products, the benefits of modularity are far greater. Without a modular design, there is little hope that contributors can understand enough of a design to contribute to it, or develop new features and fix defects without affecting many other parts of the system.

Open source products therefore need to be modular to both attract a developer community and also to facilitate the work of this community. Our data can be explained by either of these causal mechanisms. In practice, both are likely to work in parallel. p. 21

By defining the modular specification we have what I consider the break from the "old way" of doing things. It is necessary for people to see how and where the system they are going to be involved in is going to be different. Without the overall vision of the Draft Specification we may have regressed into the "old ways" without thinking how this system could truly be different. I like to think that the design of the eleven modules makes it difficult to operate in the "old way" as its inefficiencies and frustrations are always in the way.

Our work suggests that managers of the innovation process must strive to understand the influences on their design choices that stem directly from the way they are organized. The challenge is that these influences are seldom explicit, but are a result of the complex interplay between a firm’s normal problem solving and information processing routines, and the space of designs that must be searched to arrive at a new solution. While a firm can look backwards and see what kinds of designs it is predisposed to produce, it is hard to look forward, and imagine what new designs might be possible. The commercial software managers we work with almost always think their designs are highly modular. When shown these results however, they realize how much more can be achieved. pp. 21 - 22

It should also be evident that the constraints (code and customers) and the motivational and cognitive paradoxes be eliminated from the mindset of the community. To do this I have established a very high bar in which participants in this community need to conduct. This does not preclude anyone from contributing, it only seeks to break the ties with the past so that the unencumbered and unconstrained methods of community involvement are optimized to the best solution. The up to 2,500 word essay expects the community member to apply their experience in the oil and gas industry to the specification in its current state. I believe that this is enough of an exercise to truly have the community optimize the solution. And for like minded individuals to find one another on the wiki. (Closed to the general public.)

Our findings have important implications for development organizations given the recent trend towards “open” innovation and the increased use of partners in R&D projects (Chesbrough, 2003; Iansiti and Levian, 2004; MacCormack et al, 2007). In particular, they imply that these new organizational arrangements will have a distinct impact on the nature of the designs they produce, and hence may affect product performance in unintended ways. In essence, our work suggests that R&D partnering choices, as well as the division of tasks that these choices imply, cannot be managed independently of the design process itself (von Hippel, 1990). Decisions taken in one realm will ultimately affect performance in the other. Managers must understand the implications of these organizational choices, in terms of the constraints they place on the solution space.

There is much to do and much to learn in this new project. I can't suggest strongly enough that the future does not include the structured hierarchy in any business operation. That is what is being eliminated in this market meltdown. Our first issue is related to the fact that new organizations are unable to form themselves in productive and efficient ways without the software being in place first. This is why the Baldwin, Lanlgois and others analysis is so necessary to find our way through this future.

Companies today have had the opportunity to change and build this system and they have chosen to ignore it. And that is the expected response. Bureaucracies do not change and it is foolhardy to think so. The change can not be implemented in the manner that is necessary without the complete destruction of the old. To change direction, you must first stop. Does anyone believe that the structured hierarchy will be used in 2025, what about 2015? I suggest it may be sooner then 2011 that we plan to have the retirement party of the last millennium in honor of the bureaucracy.

Our work opens up a number of areas for future study. With respect to methods, we show that dependency analysis provides a powerful lens with which to examine product architecture. While we focus on only a few types of dependency, our methods can be generalized to others, assuming that they can be identified from source code. With respect to studies of modularity, our work provides visibility of a phenomena which was previously hidden, and metrics with which to compare different products. This approach promises to facilitate the study of a variety of important research questions that have previously been answered only via purely descriptive or conceptual work. pp. 22 - 23

Professor Baldwin is on the right track here. Her analysis of transactions was the means in which the Accounting Voucher was developed. With the expressed intent to have transaction design be the area of real value generation in oil and gas. Transaction processing has developed to a reasonably high level such that the ability to differentiate ourselves based on transaction processing does not exist. It is a necessity, whereas using Baldwins analysis and tools provides the means in which to design transactions.

I close with two paragraphs of Professor Baldwin that put in perspective the context of this software development project. This is an opportunity that provides the community with significant ability to make the changes and increase the performance of the oil and gas industry.

Does greater modularity require trade-offs with other aspects of performance? Intriguingly, our work suggests that, in practice, many designs are not at the performance “frontier” where a trade-off exists, but lie below it due to architectural inefficiencies or “slack” (MacCormack et al, 2006). If this is true, there may be scope to improve a design along multiple dimensions without a performance penalty.

Exploring such issues via the measurement of architecture and product performance will help reveal managerial strategies for moving designs towards the frontier. And they will help us understand the trade-offs involved in moving along it. Herbert Simon (1962) was the first to argue for the systematic study of design more than 40 years ago, claiming, ‘…the proper study of mankind is the science of design.’ However, his ambitious vision for the field has proven elusive. The study of design has been constrained by, among other things, limited theory, methods and tools that can deal with the complexity of everyday designs, and more importantly, to make them visible, allowing us to compare their structures. The methods we have developed promise to open up a host of questions that, until now, were beyond our analytical capabilities. p. 23

Please, join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Baldwin Research, Software Development

YouTube video on Object Capabilities

An report update on the development of the Security & Access Module being developed for People, Ideas & Objects. Of particular note I want to highlight the work of Berkeley Professor David Wagner in the above noted video. (Click on the title for the YouTube video). At one point he indicates that he is very interested in securing alpha users for his research and use of "Joe-e" programming language. I will be emailing him soon and offering this module's development for consideration as an alpha-user of his research.

The Joe-e programming language is an offshoot of the Java Programming Language, just as JavaFX and Groovy are. It incorporates a higher level of "Type Safety" as no "global" or "static" variables are permitted; it is single thread safe and has a number of other enhancements that make it ideal for the development of "Object Capabilities". What are "Object Capabilities" Professor Wagner points to two excellent papers that describe in detail the concepts. I will be reviewing these as both research and development of the module.

Mark Miller "Robust Composition: Towards a Unified Approach to Access Control and Concurrency Control." Johns Hopkins University 2005

and

Jonathon Rees "A security kernel based on the Lambda Calculus" MIT 1995

It will be worthwhile to look at the tie-in that we can make to Professor Carliss Baldwin's work on transactions. Recall the matrix's she introduced in defining the scope of transactions. And how "Vouchers" were how I would implement these elements of the transaction. Object Capability would define the access and concurrency of the interactions between users within that voucher as well.

In the process of this development it has become necessary to define the level of virtualization that is possible and needed for the operations of this application. Virtualization on Solaris provides the ability to have an instance of the OS and associated technology stack operate for one specific user-defined unit. The size of the unit could be the entire application, or I could define the virtualization level that would have each person, company and JOC have a virtualized OS and associated technology stack for each of those units. I would do the latter if it provided an enhanced level of security, and this will be determined through the research of this module.

What I hope to be able to do with Professor Wagner is to define the manner in which we layer the Military Command & Control structure of the Compliance & Governance Module over the Assets, People, Geography, JOC's, Companies, Disciplines etc. Much in the same way that the Military denotes in the "Sgt. 1st Class, Rick Emert, 1st ACB, 1st Cavalry Division, PAO". This definition is necessary for the application and the industry to function. The value and need of the end users to define these elements will be incalculable.

Lastly IPv6 is one of the cornerstones of the Technical Vision that I have put forward for this project. I want to review the impact of that technology on the policies and technologies mentioned in this post. Also, the level of encryption available in the Java Programming Language provides very high security. The cryptography available is well documented here.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Security, Java, Baldwin, Wagner

Modularity, Transactions, and the Boundaries of Firms: A Synthesis

Professor Carliss Y. Baldwin of Harvard University has published a new working paper. The title "Modularity, Transactions, and the Boundaries of Firms: A Synthesis" (available here) provides an excellent opportunity for me to review these topics. I intend to use Professor Baldwin's synthesis as a summary of the work that we have done in reviewing Professor Langlois working papers. I had also reviewed a prior working paper of Professor Baldwins, located here.

In the past I have been able to specify a modular specification, defined roles of both the Joint Operating Committee, the corporation and a method of how compliance and governance (Military Command & Control Structure) is achieved. I trust that reviewing the article by Professor Baldwin will enable me to build upon and re-publish these specifications with the changes learned through the review.

This first table designates the area of primary and secondary responsibility. The boundaries of the firm and market can be discerned through this table, the "Market" is for all intents and purposes the Joint Operating Committee (JOC).

Construct	Market	Firm
Joint Operating Committee	P	s
Military Styled Command and Control (Governance)	s	P
Transaction Costs	s	P
Production Costs	P	s
Innovation	P	s
Routine, compliance and accountability	s	P
Research	s	P
Development (the D in R&D)	P	s
Financial Framework	P	s
Legal Framework	P	s
Cultural Framework	P	s
Operational Decision Making Framework	P	s

P = Primary
s = secondary


A summary of our current module specification.

• Access Control and Collaboration
• Security specification
• Google Apps for People, Ideas & Objects
• Partnership Accounting Module
• Petroleum Lease Marketplace
• Resource Marketplace
• Financial Resource Marketplace
• Compliance & Governance Module
• Research and Capabilities Module
• Knowledge and Learning Module

A module summary with some detail can be found here.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Baldwin, Langlois, Modularity