Focused on the Energy Business

The purpose of this post is to highlight the differences between the systems that People, Ideas & Objects proposes to provide in the Draft Specification, and what management are providing the producer firms today. With this being the end of our 2010 budget drive, the contrast is surprising.

Within the Draft Specification we set out to build an application that deals with the issues that the innovative oil and gas producer is facing. Keeping up with the demands in the earth science and engineering disciplines. Basing the system on the Joint Operating Committee and designed to facilitate a greater level of speed and innovativeness within all producers. Providing the producer with the most profitable means of operations.

Today, I stumbled upon this McKinsey article that documents the state of affairs in Royal Dutch Shell. The interview is with Mr. Alan Matula, Executive Vice-President and CIO. I think it is best to read the article first, and then watch the video below to try and get a feel for what Mr. Matula is talking about.



What planet is Mr. Matula from? Is he serious? And if so, what industry is he in? My god, I can't believe that Shell would even hire this guy, unless of course, they all speak that way!

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: People's Budget Funding Management
 

Last day of our 2010 budget drive.

There is little time remaining in which we could raise any money in our first quarter 2010 budget drive. The consequences of not having our budget funded are many. The two critical consequences are the probable loss of one years time in which to bring the application to market. The second is the imposition of penalties to all producers for the 2010 fiscal year. These penalties are set at 300% of the fee, and therefore, effective April 1, 2010 the total costs of participation to each producer will be $4.00 per barrel of oil per day of production.

There may be a period of time in September 2010 when we can fund our budget, but based on the effectiveness of this past quarters budget drive, the probability of that remains low. Realistically, 2011 will be the earliest time in which we have the opportunities present themselves as they are here today.

What will happen in 2010 will therefore be of limited value in terms of progress. Development of the community is one of the limited options we have, limited in the sense that the community needs to see the producers support these developments. Participation by the community will be crippled without the producers financial resources.

In terms of postings to this blog, I don't see any reason why the pace and frequency can't continue. There is much to discuss in representing the variety of technology and research topics that we follow, and how the Draft Specification could fit into the industry. Besides writing on these topics is too much fun to quit.

So here is to a less pressured 2010. We did what we could and the producers don't share our concerns. Should they change their minds they'll know where to find us. To those who are regular readers, please stay tuned as the desire to continue with this project is strong. Just because the producers don't share our concerns, doesn't mean they won't come around. After all, we have now proven to the investors and shareholders that the bureaucracy won't fund this software.

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: People's Budget Funding Failure
 

Perez, The New Technologies Part V

Our concluding post of our review of Professor Carlota Perez' "The New Technologies: An Integrated View". To contrast this post to yesterday's discussion around our funding failure, reflects the surreal nature of the work here. There is much academic support, unanimous agreement with people who know enough about oil and gas, and general understanding that People, Ideas & Objects is the direction we should move, yet no funding. Professor Perez has based her research on the major economic events that have occurred in the last number of centuries. That her paper was first published in 1986 shows the quality and validity of her research.

RETHINKING THE ROUTE TO DEVELOPMENT

Contained within this paper's conclusion is a caution that once these paths have been taken, the need to sustain the development (of People, Ideas & Objects) is critical. A concern that is valid in any industry, but one where the oil and gas industry has been notoriously poor at. There are remnants of so many piecemeal initiatives littering the landscape, some in the form of commercial enterprises, that one should check their sanity in getting involved in this project.

What we do know is that the bureaucracy is on life support and will soon pass into history. Our problem is to ensure that alternatives are in place before the corpse begins to atrophy. In 2010 we stand on the shoulders of several generations of giants and could find the fall from these lofty heights painful. At 270 billion man days per day, we have far to fall and much to lose. We also know that Information Technology (IT) has been constrained and is now mature enough to be able to carry much more organizational weight. That is to say, society is demanding things be done in the easier manner provided by technology.

From what has been said no productive sector is immune to the influence of the new technologies. This implies that, into the future, most of existing plant is technically and organizationally obsolete. And with this, so are the notions and guidelines that resulted in its establishment. Hence the productive structure of each country from one end to the other must be reexamined under the light of the new conditions. p. 42

And that re-examination is here at People, Ideas & Objects, based on the Joint Operating Committee and represented in the vision of the Draft Specification. With the five year time frame noted in which to develop the Draft Specification, and five years being a minimum number of years for management to come up with their own specification, what alternatives do we have. As each day passes we lose time in which the final solution is brought to market, because of a lack of funds!

To affirm this begs the question of how to go about it. The only answer is that the new routes will necessarily result from a massive process of social creativity. The important thing is to point out that the space within which to invent them is new and different. Here we shall limit ourselves to indicating some general guidelines stemming from the features of the new paradigm. These can serve as a starting point to rethink development strategies. p. 42

Management will no doubt want their solution to be in the top-down manner that they are used to. People, Ideas & Objects is a user based, bottom-up solution based on the vision of the Draft Specification. Taping into this "social creativity" is what the technologies provide, we would be foolish not to want to incorporate it. It is reasonable to predict this approach will provide a quantum increase in productivity and efficiency.

In this context it is important to note that the new forms of organization can, by themselves and with a minimum of new equipment, significantly raise efficiency. Moreover, experience acquired after reorganization is the best source of criteria for selecting the most adequate and truly indispensable new equipment to incorporate. This has been shown again and again in Japanese plants and is in agreement with the results of a study conducted in the UK. The reorganization route can serve to revitalize and modernize certain sections of the existing industrial basis with modest investment costs. p. 43

What we are unable to do in this project, is to rally the financial support of the management. Information Technology investments have proven controversial in oil and gas, what has / needs to change to fulfill these possibilities?

We have already referred to the key role of technological dynamism in the new paradigm and the intermediary function performed by software and systems engineering firms in bringing the adaptive potential to practice. This means that taking true advantage of the new model requires a leap unto the new technologies. p. 44

And for the really tough part...

What does have to be understood is that the effort has to be sustained and concentrated. Once in the race, technological dynamism has to be maintained at the rhythm of the international frontier. This, in countries lacking a risk capital market and an adequate network of industrial services, requires a strong policy of promotion and support, capable of stimulating research and innovation and providing appropriate externalities. p. 45

I can only assume based on our 2010 funding failure, that a sustained effort can only be achieved by a chronic fear brought about by the failure of the bureaucracies. I say that on the basis of the amount of work we have to do, and the amount of time before a solution is needed by the market.

Nonetheless we believe that preparation for the future cannot be postponed. Once a world upswing is unleashed, development prospects for each country will depend not only on the level of development attained in the previous wave but also in having been capable, early enough, of creating the conditions for taking best advantage of the new. p. 46

March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 30 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Perez Budget Funding Failure Management
 

Ten Days To Go

With ten days left in our 2010 budget drive, we have eight business days to secure our funding. To date we have received no support, no indication, no commitments, nothing. One of the objectives of this funding drive is to provide evidence that the management will never support these developments. They are too conflicted, and are in no hurry to establish any competition for their services. With all that we have discussed here in the past three months, it's surprising that this project doesn't generate the support it needs. I'm obviously unaware of the great systems management has planned or are using today.

With the abysmal amount of money that is spent in oil and gas on software development, we can assure ourselves that nothing is being done. With the lack of financial resources being committed to this project, it is clear that expectations of another group lining up to "break their pick" are surreal. You truly reap what you sow.

Another aspect of management is the clear lack of concern for the markets demand for energy. Management will provide what they can when they can, and the rest is left up to the someone else. It's not their problem. This hands off approach to the marketplace displays managements lack of concern outside of their domain. That may have been the way that business was done in the past. If we all think that way today, then all of our futures will be more uncertain.

With the lack of funding, there is no lack of desire for me to bring this solution to the marketplace. I will agree the probability and possibility have become remote, if not improbable. I will continue to do what I can. Management wins in this scenario, and they will state they see the future in a different light to the one described in this blog. Without the clarity of an issue, being in the news, being on the mindset of everyone, it is difficult to rally the troops to resolve it. Which means of course, we will have to wait for that day when failure does occur.

Another aspect of this budget drive is to establish a certain point in time for me personally. I have sacrificed everything that I have to bring this project to this point. I now know that any failure of this project, temporary or otherwise, is not as a result of my efforts. I see the lack of energy becoming a problem in society, and I did what I could to avoid any difficulties. I no longer feel personally obligated to do what ever is required. Other then writing in this blog and building the community, there is little for me that can be accomplished. The financial resources of the industry are what are needed to move forward, and we will wait for that event to occur.

I am reiterating that the use of the Intellectual Property that has been developed is for the sole purpose and benefit of the communities that are represented at People, Ideas & Objects. Management may feel the opportunity to take these ideas and develop the systems based on this IP for themselves. I am providing notice to them, in this post, that no producer is authorized to use any of the IP that has been developed here at People, Ideas & Objects. Nothing. SAP and the systems vendors are provided with the same notice. The implications of these notices is that management will have to come up with your own ideas, develop them, and bring them to market. Remember, it only took me five years to develop the Draft Specification, I wish you God speed.

March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of at least one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 30 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Budget Funding Failure Management Energy
 

Perez, The New Technologies Part II

Yesterday's post started our comprehensive review of this 1986 paper "The New Technologies: An Integrated View". Professor Carlota Perez provided the tools for analysis that prove the common-sense nature of using the Joint Operating Committee (JOC). Today's post provides further proof of the times that we find ourselves in, and the context within this project. Specifically why there is so much conflict between the bureaucracy. Professor Perez states "A process of structural change in the economic sphere of the sort we have been describing cannot occur without conflict." A message that I would send to the directors of oil and gas companies, shareholders and investors. In this post we will detail the characteristics of this conflict, the scope of the opportunity and how this should be seen as the beginning of the rebuilding of the oil and gas industry. Where the innovative oil and gas producer provides significant investment opportunity and value generation.

III. Structural change and socio-institutional transformations.

To move to the JOC as the key organizational construct of the industry. Requires that we build the systems to support and identify the JOC. Moving the compliance and governance away from the hierarchy (the reason for the conflict) to alignment with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks of the JOC. This alignment, aided with the software development capability of People, Ideas & Objects, provides the producer firm to innovate off the rapidly advancing earth science and engineering disciplines. This common-sense approach to the oil and gas industry will provide substantial increases in performance. The evidence to that last claim is through the following analysis provided by Professor Perez.

Once the main guiding elements of a paradigm are established and the radical shift in the relative cost structure becomes clearly visible, the new ideal model grows in complexity and coherence, going far beyond mere technical change. In practice, it affects almost every aspect of the productive system. p. 14

I respond to each of Professor Perez' nine points individually.

a) New concepts for organizational efficiency at the plant level; p. 15

Clearly this is applicable as the Joint Operating Committee is the operational unit of all oil and gas. Not just locally but globally.

b) A new ideal model for the management and organization of the firm; p. 15

And as indicated, the source of the conflict. Management are not interested in giving up what they have worked to secure. They are in the driver seat and will be left at the back of the bus in this move to the JOC. That doesn't mean that management will not exist in the new systems. It will be different with a much more advanced skill set.

Organizationally we also see the changes in the producer firm. Focusing on the earth science and engineering capabilities of the firm and applying those to their asset base will be the key to value generation.

c) A significantly lower level of labor requirements per unit of output, with a different skill profile; p. 15

The previously mentioned different skill profile with management will similarly affect most workers within the industry. The lower level of labor requirement is a must-have in the future of the oil and gas industry. With the ever increasing volume of earth sciences and engineering involved in each barrel of oil, we will need substantially more effective labor inputs per barrel.

d) A strong bias towards the intensive use of the new key factor in technological innovation; p. 15

People, Ideas & Objects focuses on the business of oil and gas not the Information Technology. However, the IT provides the means for making the proposed changes. Without the IT the changes are not otherwise possible, and it's only through the recent maturation of IT that moving to the JOC is possible.

e) A new pattern of investment favoring sectors directly or indirectly related with the key factor and connected to the new infrastructural network, itself the object of a wave of investment; p. 15

I can see this happening. Professor Perez has always noted that financial capital has done its job. The current financial crisis is recognition that their job is done. Now is the work of production capital. The Draft Specifications Resource Marketplace Module provides for this type of activity. Where producers and suppliers work together to build the types of tools and services that are needed as a result of the expansion of the sciences. This "marketplace" module creates the market for the purposes described here.

f) A bias, therefore, also in the overall product mix, resulting from higher rates of growth in key factor related sectors; p. 15

If production capital has to choose between the innovative oil and gas producer, supported by People, Ideas & Objects software systems, and the bureaucracy...

g) A redefinition of optimal production scales leading to a redistribution of production between larger and smaller firms; p. 15

This has already begun. Those individuals that can team up with like minded people are able to establish significant production in very short periods of time. These teams have been discovered by the Shell's and Exxon's, and are finding a ready market for their skills. Within a short period of time, as little as five years in some cases, these innovative producers can sell the producer firm for several billions of dollars. If these small start-up producers had the innovative supporting software of People, Ideas & Objects available to them, it would be anticipated that the time frame would reduce, the International Oil Company could quickly take over the management of the property and the market demand for energy would be satisfied. I would anticipate that these "teams" would be able to generate larger production profiles in shorter periods of time with People, Ideas & Objects.

h) A new pattern of geographic location of investment as the new model redefines comparative advantages and disadvantages! p. 15

I'm surprised that this attribute is happening as well. The Preliminary Research Report was directed at the Canadian producers as its market for software development. I suggested in the report that if they didn't act, they would soon find the Calgary marketplace becoming a branch-plant of Houston. Unfortunately that is happening. Shell and other producers have moved their head offices out of Canada, and each day more decisions are made in Houston. This may also be a result of having two clusters of producers on one continent. Based on my statistics, either way, Canada, as a marketplace for People, Ideas & Objects, stands at a mere 3% of the U.S. marketplace and slightly behind South Korea.

i) New areas of concentration of the most powerful firms, replacing those prevailing in the previous paradigm. p. 15

I'm not sure, but this maybe the focus of the U.S. industry being the U.S. marketplace. If so then we can assume that the scope of the People, Ideas & Objects application modules will be defined by the users as the American producer focused on U.S. based production. And I'm good with that.

Professor Perez moves on to defining the effect of the financial crisis, and why it is human nature to have to go to such extremes of failure before we implement the necessary changes.

In the same manner, when a new techno-economic rationality propagates in the productive system, it becomes necessary to effect vast transformations in society as a whole to allow the deployment of its growth potential. p. 15

and

The crisis is truly a process of “creative destruction” but not only in the economy but also in the socio-institutional sphere. The new upswing can only be unleashed by means of vast socio-institutional innovations, in response to the requirements of the new paradigm and geared to facilitating the full transformation seething in the productive sphere. p. 16

Please note this "full transformation" whether that is with People, Ideas & Objects or another unknown system, will not occur without the software being built first. Spontaneous order as an economic phenomenon is questionable in today's society. Professor Perez states;

This process of social and political innovation is naturally long and full of conflicts. Nevertheless, production cannot be re-launched upon a lasting expansion path without re-establishing structural coherence, by arriving at a socio-institutional context capable of favoring the deployment of the new techno-economic potential. p. 17

And nothing along these lines will occur without the establishment of People, Ideas & Objects budget. We have much to do in terms of determining the right direction and processes.

Of course, the construction of a coherent socio-institutional framework, just as that of a techno-economic paradigm, is a gradual trial and error process, driven by the need to confront the various manifestations of the crisis and often hindered by the inertia of existing institutions and vested interests, associated with the old mode of growth. p. 17

With the petroleum industry responsible for offsetting 270 billion man days of physical labor each day, we have much to lose. I hope that we don't have to fully explore this crisis before we do something. And please remember none of the many years of development ahead of us will be easy. Clearly the bureaucracy will not act. And as Professor Perez suggests are too conflicted. Being part of People, Ideas & Objects is the beginning of how this process, the value generation of the oil and gas industry, starts.

This means that each crisis, each period of technological transition, is a point of indetermination in history. A quantum jump in potential productivity opens the way for a great increase in the generation of wealth. But the specific commodities that will compose that greater wealth and the way it will be distributed will depend on the socio-political framework arrived at. Historically, each transition has modified both the conditions of the various social groups within each country and the relative position of countries in the generation and distribution of world production. p. 17

Who will participate, and where is yet to be determined.

For each country, whatever the level of development reached in the previous wave, the need appears to make internal changes and to participate in the construction of a new world order. If the hypotheses presented here are a good approximation of the nature of the crisis and the means to overcome it, then, the best way to find criteria for a successful transition and make a leap in development prospects is a deep understanding of the new paradigm. This is possible because when the crisis becomes visible the paradigm has already diffused enough to be analyzed. pp. 17 - 18

March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 26 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Perez Organization Change Budget Funding
 

27, 28, 29, 30...

Adding to the list of compelling reasons for People, Ideas & Objects.

# 27, I am an unreasonable man.

Referring to George Bernard Shaw's saying.

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

Therefore, for the energy industry to progress depends on the unreasonable man. And that's me, just ask anyone.

# 28, 270 Billion Man Days per Day.

If every barrel of oil has the capacity to offset 18,000 hours of manual labor, then we have a dependence on energy. How far a fully loaded semi-trailer can travel on one barrel of oil? (Answer is 252 miles) How much effort would it take to move that product (80,000 lbs) that distance without the benefit of energy. At least 18,000 man hours. In yesterday's post I detailed the specific nature of this threat.

We're fooling ourselves if we think we can get along without petroleum based energy. With the Chinese, India, Brazil and other countries joining the middle class, the demand for energy will be significant. We need to solve this problem and that is what People, Ideas & Objects is focused on providing.

# 29, Collaboration facilitated around one vendor.

People, Ideas & Objects provides the oil and gas producers with a focused software development capability. This capability is universally available to all producers who use the applications. Enabling a quality of collaborations and communications that are not otherwise available.

If for example, Exxon were to be providing the software services of People, Ideas & Objects, then many producers would be hesitant to use the application as it provides too much information to Exxon. In the same way, each producer having their own systems would disable the opportunity of having the open collaborations that are available only when everyone is using the same systems. That is to say that different applications have different languages, protocols and methods. Communications are constrained and limited unless there are 15 IT people available to support the collaborations. Having everyone on the same system provides a means to facilitate enhanced collaborations.

# 30, Users and the Community of Independent Service Providers.

This one is so obvious, I almost missed it. It should really be number one, and will be in the final summary. Users are the critical aspect of making software work. Without users we end up with what we have today. Applications that users tolerate. This focus and drive towards the user will continue until the users feel the developers are reading their minds. That is what agile development methodologies can provide the user community. Anticipation of what the user will want.

March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 26 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Funding Budget Innovation
 

270 Billion Man Days per Day

That is the number of "man days of labor per day" that are offset by the consumption of 120 million barrels of oil and gas. 270 Billion man days per day.

Here are my calculations. How far can a fully loaded semi-trailer travel at 60 MPH on one barrel of oil? (42 gallons x 6 mpg = 252 miles) How much effort would it take to move that product (80,000 lbs) that distance without the benefit of energy. Lets suggest a man walking with 100 lbs of product @ 3 mph, it would take 800 such men 84 hours to move that weight that distance. That is total of 800 x 84 = 67,200 hours of energy equivalent labor. The world produces approximately 120 million barrels of oil and gas per day. 120 million x 67,200 = 8.064 trillion man hours and 1.008 trillion man days of physical labor offset each day. [Please note I am using the 18,000 (or 270 billion man days) man hours in these calculations as all energy use may not be as efficient as the semi-trailer example noted.] Kind of makes systemic risk and the potential of global warming, 50 years from now, look irrelevant.

Here is what we know. Prices for oil and gas have increased substantially in the past decade. These have fueled record activity, yet we still have an ability to produce only 85 million barrels of oil each day. I suggest we are organizationally constrained and are unable to achieve greater volumes of energy production. The bureaucracy can only run so fast.

We're fooling ourselves if we think we can get along without petroleum based energy or even a small decrease to what we use today. With China, India, Brazil and other countries joining the middle class, the future demand for energy will be significant. We need to solve this problem and that is what People, Ideas & Objects is focused on providing. Moving the organizational construct of the industry to the Joint Operating Committee. The legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks of the global oil and gas industry.

Management are correct to have recognized this is not their problem. I say this with the greatest volume of sarcasm possible. Who's responsibility is it? To sit and do nothing about the scope of this issue shows a complete failure by those that are responsible. It won't take too much to get out of line in order for the collapse of society as we know and understand it today. If demand begins to develop, or supply becomes more challenged, rationing could precipitate the decline of our standard of living and force us to make choices that we should not have to make. All because the management didn't see that their product became so valuable to society. Maybe they are blind. We should start taking the names of the people that are willing to forgo their use of energy and hold them to it. Any rationing of energy is as logical and costly.

What is the future of this industry? Will it be the bureaucracies that are in power for another 100 years? Do we just let the world figure this one out on their own? Is there money to be made in this environment? It's time we began to take this opportunity and start providing the world with the potential for 2 trillion man days of effort, offset every day. What is our potential? And should we limit it so willingly?

People, Ideas & Objects proposes we build the systems to support the Joint Operating Committee. The design of these systems are detailed in this blog, the Preliminary Research Report, and Draft Specification. A design that moves the compliance and governance of the hierarchy to be in alignment with the five frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. A design that enables innovation in the earth science and engineering disciplines to accelerate and meet the market demand for energy.

By saying things of this nature I risk alienating the status-quo. I say let them cut my budget. And it's no longer just me talking about this problem. In a blog post today, Professor James Hamilton is noting similar warnings. March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 26 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Failure Budget Funding Hamilton Energy Economics Leadership
 

McKinsey on User Participation

McKinsey & Company publish a blog entitled "Perspectives on Business Technology".

This site is published by the Business Technology Office of McKinsey & Company. It offers perspectives and points of view on topical business technology issues of interest to executives. Opinions are those of the authors and are not drawn from confidential client information.

They recently ran a short series of posts on 'user participation', a topic that is of keen interest to People, Ideas & Objects. We are focused on the user of the software defined in the Draft Specification. User driven software developments have proven themselves superior to the point where I believe it would be redundant to attempt to bring a solution to the market without the establishment of an active user community. The user community and the Community of Independent Service Providers are critical to the quality of People, Ideas & Objects.

McKinsey discuss the current state of user participation in this four post series. These posts can be found here, here, here and here. The process necessary to become a member of the user or CISP communities requires a little work on behalf of each individual. I feel it is important that once in the community the people are able to actively participate and contribute. The application process enables this through the development of the users own ideas and areas of interest. Once these are reflected in their summaries they will be posted in the wiki for all members of the communities to search and discover like minded people. Then the real fun can begin.

McKinsey note that there has to be a trade off. In their conclusion they note the balance required for high-quality participation should involve some effort.

Our recent observations suggest that participation is here to stay, but stimulating continued high-quality participation is complex. It requires a subtle balance of rewards and effort, a thoughtful segmentation of participants and a comprehension of the social structures of participation.

I think that we have been able to strike that balance with the expectations noted in the process to join People, Ideas & Objects. And that does not suggest that the process as it stand won't change. McKinsey note this is somewhat of a black art and we will try hard to find the right balance as we proceed.

These competencies are not easy to grasp, which explains the persistence of power curves of participation, and why only a small number of companies have been able to truly pull it off. But recent data also shows that mastering the art of enabling participation can deliver a major payoff.

March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 26 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's User McKinsey Funding Development Community
 

Three weeks left...

That is we have three weeks left in our 2010 budget drive. We still have no commitments, funding or support of any kind. It was an objective of this funding drive to provide evidence to the directors, shareholders and investors of oil and gas that the management are too conflicted to support these developments. Again, the evidence is in. Management have done everything in their power to ensure these development don't happen.

Our appeal to the shareholders and investors is to bring about a competitive means of organizing the oil and gas industry. Just as Bear Stearns and Lehman Brother's managements didn't provide an alternative for their shareholders, I hope to appeal to the shareholders in oil and gas firms.

I believe there is a far bigger issue at play in the oil and gas industry in comparison to the banking industry. No one is missing either Bear Stearns or Lehman. Other then the shareholders that is. In oil and gas the economy is the direct benefactor of the energy the industry produces. We have documented here many times the calculation of 18,000 man hours of effort that is offset by each barrel of oil. By not having those barrels freely available to the consumer denies the full potential of our market economies.

This isn't the role or responsibility of the management of the oil and gas firms. At least that is what they suggest is the case in their version of the market economy. Who's responsibility is it to ensure that markets are well supplied? If the oil and gas producer's are not responsible, who is? At some point the issue of a lack of supply will require an answer. What will the oil and gas industry say at that point?

Last Tuesday I wrote about the use of some of the new mobile devices in making and implementing decisions at the Joint Operating Committee level. I also indicated that Exxon could not provide the marketplace with that type of software offering. If Exxon or any single producer were to provide a software solution like People, Ideas & Objects, it would cede too much information to Exxon or the producer. There are two other points to consider. One is the ability to have all the producers on the same technical capability, and the need to have one software supplier.

The ability to have all the producers representing the JOC using the same software denotes some of the value of using the Cloud Computing model. Accessing the most current version of the software and knowing that everyone else is using the same tools facilitates and enables collaboration and communication. When the application's are also transaction aware and able to manage the business based on the decisions of the JOC, then it can truly begin to optimize the science and engineering innovations.

The second point is how the industry is run today. Multiple vendors each providing one slice of the functionality to some of the producers to the JOC. Others are using other systems that are provided by other vendors who have different technologies and perspectives. Having the virtual meeting that I mentioned, with all of the potential described in Tuesday's blog post, will have to come with 15 IT personnel supporting the interactions and protocols. Good luck.

The need for one software development capability should be clear to readers of this blog. I have used the Intellectual Property developed in my research and this blog to concentrate these software developments to mitigate the issues in the energy industry. The use of Cloud Computing and the potential ease-of-use between producer firms requires one ERP solution provider.

March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 26 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Budget Funding Governance Leadership
 

22, 23, 24, 25, 26...

We continue on in summarizing the many compelling reasons for People, Ideas & Objects to be funded. The five additional reasons being added today provide more support as to why these developments should continue. The previous 21 reasons were summarized in blog posts here and here.

22 & 23 Draft Specifications boundaries of firms and markets. The Chandlerian Perspective

Much of the Draft Specification used Transaction Cost Economics (TCE), Modularity and the boundaries between firms and markets in its design. These provided the guiding principles in terms of how the specification deals with the issues facing the oil and gas industry.

We recently discovered Harvard Professor Gary P. Pisano and his analysis of Science-Based Businesses. Certainly oil and gas qualifies as a science based industry. Importantly Professor Pisano bases his analysis in the Chandlerian Perspective (Reason # 23) and its impact on science-based businesses.

The Chandlerian Perspective defines the value and benefit of this software development project to the producer firms. In his recent paper Professor Pisano provided us with a summary of Alfred D. Chandler's perspective.

• Technical Innovation & Organizational innovation are interdependent.

If we are to increase the volume of science and engineering involved in each barrel of oil equivalent. Then we must organize ourselves in ways to define and support these desired changes.

• New forms of business organization & Institutional arrangements are invented to solve specific economic problems.

In other words we need to act. This change will not occur on its own. We have to design the solutions to today's problems. This point should take on a greater sense of urgency from the point of view that we are standing on the shoulders of several generations of giants. Any fall in the performance of the existing bureaucracy could be far more severe then we assume. Moving back to manual systems is not an option.

• Organizational & Institutional innovation is an evolutionary process - nothing guarantees "we get it right every time".

People, Ideas & Objects is providing a software development capability. One that adapts based on input from the user community. This is not developing to a fixed point, but designed to hit a moving target. I foresee no time in which People, Ideas & Objects will not have substantial work to be done. And this level of work is just as applicable today as it will be 20 years from now.


24 Intellectual Property is focused on oil and gas innovation, and available to all.

The research that is reflected in the Preliminary Research Report, the Draft Specification and this blog make up the copyright that I have earned in the publication of these ideas. Users and members of the Community of Independent Service Providers add to this Intellectual Property (IP) base with their contributions in defining and building the People, Ideas & Objects software applications. Access to this IP is through the user signing the license which provides access to the original research and Draft Specification. Permitting the communities to contribute as if the IP was their own. In turn they assign the right to any of their ideas or developments back to the original copyright owner, where in turn, it is available to the entire users base.

This is done for a number of reasons. This method provides the base of understanding of the industry to innovate at the speed at which the IP can be developed, or instantly. There won't be 100 different people claiming ownership of one part of an application or IP; and the cross licensing and other legal tactics that can be used by those that might claim some ownership.

Secondly the concentration of IP allows me to focus the industries dollars on one solution. Breaking the scope of the People, Ideas & Objects down into a competitive marketplace would only dilute the offerings of many potential service providers. Cobbling together software solutions to meet the scientific and engineering driven demands of the industry is the last thing that is needed.

Third, users and particularly the CISP earn revenues from People, Ideas & Objects for their ideas and IP. (Through the license they are effectively selling their IP back to me.) They also are granted a non-exclusive license to generate, for their exclusive benefit, any revenues associated with any services they provide along with the People, Ideas & Objects software to their producer clients.

A focused software developer and user community must be supported and motivated to provide the producer with the most innovative environment in which to manage their operations. The focus of the CISP is to provide the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Management of the IP in this fashion provides these objectives are attained.

25 No finance related constraints with People, Ideas & Objects.

People ask why not fund People, Ideas & Objects by going public or with bank loans. These options are not open to companies that want to provide solutions to small markets like oil and gas ERP systems vendors. They may be open, but they are certainly not able to fund the type of developments that are needed. At some point the producers will need to make payments to those firms that may have been able to borrow or raise money. I say we just skip that first step and start with the revenue from the producers to fund the developments.

This provides People, Ideas & Objects with no bankers, no public stock offerings or exchanges to distract or compromise our focus on providing the best software development capability to the oil and gas industry. I think this makes for a compelling reason for the producers to get behind this project and start funding the budget. When added to our compelling business model, where the producers pay for the costs associated with developments plus an element of profit. The producers (as individual firms) are able to gain far greater value then what their software development expenses will be. The CISP and Users are also able to earn a handsome living by providing the producers with this software and their associated services. Leaving no stone unturned in supporting the innovative oil and gas producer.

26 Marketplaces.

The Draft Specification contains three "Marketplace" modules. (Petroleum Lease, Resource and Financial Marketplace Modules.) We recently learned from Professor Ronald Coase that Markets are creations. I am embedding his video "Markets, Firms and Property Rights" for your review. Creating markets in these modules will provide a more dynamic industry, better able to meet the demands of an innovative oil and gas producer.



March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 26 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Budget Funding Pisano Innovation Management

What happens April 1, 2010

The question has been asked what happens to People, Ideas & Objects if on April 1, 2010 there is no financial support for the project. A difficult and challenging question, one that could be answered many different ways, based on the desired political outcome. Writing a blog keeps the transparency at a high level and therefore, there is only one way in which to answer the question.

Seeing the project as it stands today, it is clear there is much value that can be developed in the long term. A funding failure is not indicative of the lack of long term value. We will continue somehow and in some fashion, just as we have for the past number of years. If this were easy, it would have been built by now. We are not deterred by the scope and scale of the challenge that stands ahead of us.

When I say we, I mean this community. The number of people that follow this project is small by Internet standards. If we realize that we are talking about developing ERP systems for oil and gas producers based on the Joint Operating Committee, the numbers are impressive. This community deserves to continue on.

We have to ask ourselves "what if" the failure of the oil and gas industry does come about. We have seen the international banking industry collapse, many of the people in those industries have been severely challenged. Housing continues to be challenged, despite the press releases to the contrary. And now governments are being called on their budgets and debts. Whether it's Greece, Iceland or California. Governments everywhere are overextended and must adjust their ways if they are to survive. The oil and gas industry is being challenged, I believe, by increased demand from China, India and other rapidly developing nations. At the same time the industry is moving to a more complex scientific footing, greater political, geographical, and logistic risks. Change of this magnitude will cause the current bureaucracies to fail. We need to be there to pick up the pieces. Otherwise some economies will have to take a lower priority in terms of their allocation of energy.

A funding failure on March 31, 2010 is a high probability. Greater then 95% in my opinion. That does not provide us with a reason to stop. How we will continue on is in similar fashion to what has been done here in the past. We're closer to securing our initial funding then we've ever been. Patience is not something that I am oriented to, however, if this funding failure pushes back our timing, there is nothing that we can do about that. We should understand that we will probably be in the same position one year from now as we are today. Progress from this point takes the financial commitment of leadership of the industry. Until they step up, we will need to exercise that patience.

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: People's Budget Funding Failure
 

Perez The New Technologies Preview

I'm preparing the many posts of our review of Professor Carlota Perez' paper "The New Technologies: An Integrated View". In this document it becomes very clear to me why the situation at People, Ideas & Objects is the way that it is. That is of course, it has to be that way. The situation that I am talking about is the strong conflict between this software development project and the existing bureaucratic ways and means of the industry. As much as I would like it to be less confrontational, there is no choice in the matter.

It's about competition. The old competing against the new. The old failing and being replaced by a bottom-up rebuilding of the industry. Professor Perez states;

The crisis is truly a process of “creative destruction” but not only in the economy but also in the socio-institutional sphere. The new upswing can only be unleashed by means of vast socio-institutional innovations, in response to the requirements of the new paradigm and geared to facilitating the full transformation seething in the productive sphere. p. 16

And as much as we would like to have this transition managed in a constructive way, that's not in the cards. The bureaucracy has made their choice not to support these developments. That fact is very clear to me, and hopefully that will become evident to the energy company shareholders, directors and investors in this 2010 budget drive.

What began as the expectation of an enjoyable review of Professor Perez' 1986 document. Has turned into the discovery of a significant piece of research. I don't know how many posts will be the result of the review, but I expect to take the time that a document of this quality deserves.

March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 21 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Perez Failure Funding Budget
 

Two Down, One To Go

Two months have now passed in our first quarter 2010 budget drive. The month of March is here and our deadline of the 31st is only weeks away. To date I have received no expression of interest, inquiry, commitment or cash. I get the sense that everyone is waiting for someone else to initiate the process.

The probability of a funding failure occurring March 31, 2010 is very real. As I have indicated, every attempt will be made to keep the project moving forward, however, without financial support this may become extremely difficult and in my opinion, unnecessary. What will be the cost of any funding failure? The users deserve the financial support of the industry.

The methods used to fund software development in the past have failed. Methods that have been successful for the SAP's and other large vendors. If software for oil and gas was a lucrative business. Where producers were presented with new and innovative software products, there would be no demand for this blog's research. Raising capital to fund software development in oil and gas ceased decades ago. There is a problem with the expectation that venture capitalists will fund the innovative software developer. The problem is the funding doesn't exist, particularly if the software developer doesn't have industry support of any bottom-up initiative.

The venture capital and bank funding avenues are closed. With the structure of this development, of providing a software development capability, with the source code being available for review, there are no assets in which to pledge to the capital markets for funding. This is a licensing model of Intellectual Property for revenue generation. Where the licensing of the Intellectual Property to the industry is how the software development revenues are generated. To suggest that the investment or banking community will be involved at any time during this project is incorrect.

Recall that one of the objectives of this budget drive is to prove the bureaucracy will not fund People, Ideas & Objects. Our appeal is to the directors, shareholders and investors of the oil and gas producers. Our research shows the use of the Joint Operating Committee is the direction in which the industry should move toward. That this transition is supported by strong, top level academic research. What alternatives have the bureaucracies proposed to deal with the issues of the industry? Within the transition to the Joint Operating Committee, the ownership class have an opportunity to increase their governance over their assets. That is the basis of this budget appeal.

I have also argued the bureaucracies are currently the beneficiaries of 100% of the proceeds of oil and gas sales. At today's prices, annual global oil and gas revenues are $3.4 trillion. Why is it expected that venture capital would be needed for these software developments, or for that matter, any oil and gas innovation? The parsing of financial resources to "appropriate" providers establishes the oil and gas bureaucracies control and influence over every aspect of the industry. The problem should be clear, they have done nothing in the area of software. When bureaucracies control the competition to themselves (the software) it is not in their best interests to sponsor People, Ideas & Objects.

March 31, 2010 is the deadline for raising our 2010 operating budget. After which a variety of consequences, such as financial penalties and a loss of one years time will occur. Our appeal should be based on the 21 compelling reasons of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are.

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: People's Budget Funding Governance Leadership
 

Barbara Franklin on Nightly Business ...

Last nights Nightly Business Report has some interesting closing comments from Barbara Franklin. Ms. Franklin is a Director of Dow Chemical and Aetna Inc., and since 1980 has served on twelve other boards. She was also Commerce Secretary in the George H. W. Bush administration. Her comments were provocative and if correct show that shareholders, directors and investors are better able to deal with the governance of their firms.

Around 22:00 minutes into the show Mr. Franklin is introduced to discuss the "increasing role of shareholders in corporate governance" and "the rise of the shareholder is a blow to old school CEO's". Suggesting that our appeal to the shareholders and investors in oil and gas may not end in vain. In reviewing these comments it becomes obvious that I should include the Directors of the producer firms as I feel they too are interested in better corporate governance. A small oversight on my behalf.

The comments that resonate with the work that we are doing at People, Ideas & Objects are as follows:

The demise of the imperial CEO is at hand. They are more participatory and actively work with their boards.

After Enron and WorldCom scandals, the passage of Sarbane's Oxely act, a board room power shift emerged. Today boards are much more engaged with CEO's in a variety of ways.

• CEO Succession
• Strategy
• Ethics
• Executive Compensation
• Risk Oversight

And now a new board room power shift is in the wings. Some shareholders want to add their own candidates to a companies slate for election. Eliminating the need for proxy fights. The result could be a more collaborative governance structure in publicly traded companies. We'll see.

These are all positive initiatives. Since Ms. Franklin was speaking as if the first power shift, the boards being more engaged with CEO's, has occurred. The topics of Strategy, Ethics and Risk Oversight are areas where People, Ideas & Objects can add value to the producer firm. If as Ms Franklin suggests the second "power shift is in the wings" where shareholders are able to "add their own candidates to a companies slate" then corporate America could have the tools necessary to deal with many of the problems in today's business.

How could participation in People, Ideas & Objects budget funding help to make these "power shifts" more effective? For the shareholders, directors and investors having a direct say in the development of the software that their firm operates under, they will have the tools to deal with the firms issues and opportunities.

I have suggested many times in this blog that SAP is the bureaucracy. That management have used the SAP application to entrench their positions. As much as the management affect the change in the ERP software is the amount of change that can be exercised. Since SAP is static, the organizations do not change and management have SAP as their straw man excuse at hand.

If the ownership class had the ability to influence the software design, then they have the ability to influence much of the make up of their firm. People, Ideas & Objects is user based developments. The user community is comprised of all stakeholders. Since it is requested that the budget be funded by the shareholders, directors and investors of the firm, then they would have direct influence.

One of the breakthroughs of the Preliminary Research Report was the finding that software defines and supports the organization. To change the organization requires that the software be changed first. Therefore the investor, shareholders and directors need to acquire influence in a defined software development capability. In oil and gas that is People, Ideas & Objects.

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: People's Governance Capability User Budget Funding
 

Why would producers pay?

It is argued that oil and gas producers do not have the requisite motivation to fund the budget of People, Ideas & Objects. My concern in pushing this budget cycle is that the motivation to make the necessary changes has receded from the mindset of people in the industry. When the financial crisis was at its height, all seemed to be in desperate need of bringing about change. Now that the pressure brought on by the crisis doesn't exist, the sense of urgency to address these problems has passed. We have survived to live another day. To approach the manner in which business is conducted is off the radar of the majority of people within the industry.

It is far better that this has happened now then having it happen in the middle of our developments. I don't expect that "all is well" will be the call even as early as later this year. We have solved none of the problems that brought the system close to collapse. Stuffing the economy with up to $17 trillion in stimulus and cash has had a strong effect. The performance of the bureaucracy remains questionable and the opportunity for them to continue on, I'll agree, is well entrenched. What this imputes is that the only time something like People, Ideas & Objects can be developed is during a complete collapse of the industry.

So here is to living happily ever after. This last ditch attempt to acquire some funding to keep moving forward looks less probable each day. We'll certainly continue on until March 31, 2010 and see what might come about, after that we will have to evaluate everything in light of the funding failure.

In answer to the question that is being asked, why would the producers pay? The People, Ideas & Objects value proposition shares the one-time software development costs across the production profile of the industry. Simply the producer, like the user, will attain greater value by contributing then it's costs. As evidenced in yesterday's example of the start-up oil and gas producer. The engineer does not have to incur the overhead necessary to maintain compliance with the various regulatory agencies.

The People, Ideas & Objects software and the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP) is a critical aspect of how the producers compliance is achieved. The tacit knowledge of the industry is held by the people that work in the business. The software can not capture this knowledge, but what can happen with People, Ideas & Objects is the CISP define, build and use the software tools needed to do their jobs.

Where we'll stand on March 31, 2010 in terms of our future is quite exhilarating. Nothing focuses the mind quite like this type of situation. What we need to be doing is getting to the business of the business of oil and gas. We face a questionable future, and the complexity and difficulty is only accelerating.

On a related note, I find the "elite" economists oddly sharing my frustration at the pace of these changes. Simon Johnson and this Reason Magazine piece are good examples of opportunities potentially being lost.

Needless to say we still have not received any expression of support, commitments or funding. [Maybe I should be the one to get the message.] If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas 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: People's Funding Budget Development Economics Leadership