The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXXVII (S&AC Part VII)

It has been a while since we wrote anything specific about the Security & Access Control module of the Preliminary Specification. It is maybe a generic module that has a fixed level of functionality and process management in comparison to the other modules. Our review to date has been about innovation and organizational change. And these topics have not necessarily been consistent with what Security & Access Control are all about.

In reviewing the posts to this point I want to highlight a few of the things that have to be the important features of the module. We are providing the Security & Access Control to the right people, who have the right access to the right information with the right authority at the right time and at the right place. What we know about relational databases, that they are based on predicate calculus and set theory, makes them ideal for enabling this access in the context of the Joint Operating Committee.

It is in the Security & Access Control module that the Military Command & Control Metaphor is established. That is the chain of command between the individuals from within the producer firm, the Joint Operating Committee and the service industry representatives. Each individual is provided with a rank level of “command” and is provided with established authority and responsibilities as a result. Lower ranks are also within the chain of command of higher ranks. This ranking and command structure provides the ability to have the pooling of the earth science and engineering, as well as other, resources pooled between members of the Joint Operating Committees.

We noted that the types of data that the producer firm and the Joint Operating Committee were dealing with were different in terms of their security requirements. Joint Operating Committees were dealing in data that was shared amongst the partnership and was not necessarily proprietary in nature. On the other hand the producer firm is where most of the proprietary information is held. The reserve reports, accounting information and strategy, and internal communications. This provides a separation of data from the domains of operation.

Authentication, and having the ubiquitous availability of anywhere and anytime access are issues that are needed to be addressed by advanced ERP systems. Secure access through iPad’s and phones brings about new challenges for producers and Joint Operating Committees. Encryption of all network traffic, and storage of data are necessary in this day and age. For compliance purposes a proposed ownership structure of the “cloud computing” infrastructure that meets the needs of the producers SEC requirements has been provided.

The Security & Access Control module will provide an interface that provides the appropriate governance requirements are met by the organization. If you have a requirement that a process is reviewed by certain individuals within your organization then they can be mapped within the organization. Any gaps could be filled and the process could then proceed. There is also the ability to have the delegation of authority and responsibilities assigned during absences.

This is a quick summary of the content of the Security & Access Control module of the Preliminary Specification. Now that we are reviewing the Oracle technologies, strategies and architectures we will be able to blend these requirements into their products and services and give users a better understanding of how these technologies will be implemented. The one area that will be unique is going to be the Military Command & Control Metaphor. However, as we will see that may not be technically too difficult to do.

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

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle (private circle, accessible by members only) and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification.

The Preliminary Specification Part LXVII (S&AC Part VI)

This post discusses the manner in which authorizations, roles and responsibilities are handled in the Security & Access Control module of the Preliminary Specification. Although we have moved beyond vacation season, we should also discuss, the topic of delegating the authority and responsibility during absences, which is something that can come up at any time.

As background we should recall that each individual would have different access levels and authorizations in terms of access to the People, Ideas & Objects systems. Assuming different roles and responsibilities would impute different access levels to data, information, processes and functionality. On top of that, the Security & Access Control module is the key module for imposing the Military Command & Control Metaphor throughout the People, Ideas & Objects application modules. This structure, particularly in a Joint Operating Committee, would work to weave the multiple producer firms under one chain of command. It also provides an interface to ensure the coverage of all the processes were “manned” to ensure compliance, governance and overall completeness of the process.

Throughout the Preliminary Specification there is the perception of a heightened role for technology in terms of enabling the authorization to conduct operations within the system. That is to say the ability to do things and get things done is through the collaborations with partners and to authorize actions through participation in the processes managed by the systems. This participation dictates that the designation of the roles in the Security & Access Control module “means” more then just data access; but also imputes authority and responsibility to undertake actions on behalf Joint Operating Committees and / or producer firms.

Consideration should be given for whom has authorization to sign an AFE or who can sign for a payment. In a system such as People, Ideas & Objects, will there be the need for any paper? In order for the system to operate it must respect a chain of command or structure that imposes some authority and responsibility to those within the organization who have that authority. I know, (he says sarcastically) we’ll use the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM). As it has been stated here before the MCCM is to be used throughout the Joint Operating Committee and the producer firm for these reasons.

It would also be necessary to be able to assign this authority within the Security & Access Control module during any absence. If someone with authority and responsibility were to be away for whatever reason, or for a short period of time, they should be able to assign their authority to another person to fill that role while they are away. This will ensure that the process isn’t held up during their absence. Delegations of authority have been used for years in larger firms and with a system that imposes the authorizations and responsibilities on specific roles, the ability to temporarily move them down, across or up the chain of command is a necessity to keep the organization functioning.

Lastly we should talk about the interface that helps to identify the missing elements of a process. It would simply show the command structure of the people who are assigned to a Joint Operating Committee or to a process and their related role, authorizations and responsibilities. If someone was to be away then it would show who was taking over their role. It would also help to identify how you could impose the chain of command to fill the void of any vacancies. This would be particularly important if the role or process was needed to be documented for compliance purposes.

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

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification. 

The Preliminary Specification Part XXXII (S&AC Part V)

People, Ideas & Objects development of the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) of the Security & Access Control module is not without some historical context. Before the hierarchy, which I perceive as somewhat of a commercial development of the 20th century, there was only the military structure in terms of large organizations. The main difference between the two is rather subtle but significant. The military structure is much broader and flatter then the hierarchy. That is one of the ideals that we are seeking, but the more important feature is the ability for the chain of command to span multiple internal and external organizational structures.

If we analyze the U.S. Military we find a number of interesting attributes of using the military chain of command that will provide value in the use of People, Ideas & Objects software applications. First is the title and assignment of an individual in the military.  For example, “Sgt. Richard Knuth, Company A, Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division”. A similar title and assignment for the people within a Joint Operating Committee would help to clarify the role and responsibilities, authority and capabilities the individual would have within the JOC. For example this individual might have the following “Richard Knuth, Chief Engineer, Field Straddle, Elmworth. Irrespective of which firm this individual is from each of the participants would recognize that the authority of a Chief Engineer was the same throughout the industry and that the designation of Chief Engineer entitled the individual to authorize the appropriate actions.

Now this is not fundamentally different from how the industry operates today. What is different is the ability to operate in a fashion where the interactions between the producers in the JOC are done as if they were all employed by the JOC. Where multiple producer firms are contributing many full time staff to the JOC. This interaction between producers through the JOC can only be replicated if there is a recognizable chain of command between the firms that make up the JOC. In addition to the recognizable chain of command each organization must have additional governance concerns handled, and compliance plays a big part in this as well. (We will talk more about these in the future in the Compliance & Governance module.) That although it would be an easy thing to implement from a people point of view, the actual implementation of pooling the staff from multiple organizations becomes complex when we consider all of the implications. However, with the Information Technologies that exist today, and the issues of the shortages of earth science and engineering talent we have few choices but to pursue this pooling concept.

The nature of the people that will be working through the chain of command that is layered over the Joint Operating Committee will include all of the disciplines that are involved in the oil and gas industry. The contributions of staff, financial and technical resources will include everyone that is employed by the industry today. I can foresee many of the office buildings being refurbished to accommodate the staff of a single JOC. There the staff from the different producers would be seconded to work for the JOC, working at a single JOC not at any particular producer firm.

In previous blog posts discussing the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM). I noted this inter and intra organizational use of the MCCM was similar to that used by NATO. That armies of the various countries could work together and recognize personnel from each others armies and immediately recognize and use the same chain of command. Unfortunately then came Libya and the failure of NATO may be well at hand. And the unfortunate parallel may be seen as a striking example as why the MCCM might not work in People, Ideas & Objects. I think otherwise as the Joint Operating Committee is the financial framework of the industry. This means that all of the members of a JOC are equally driven by their financial interests. And that financial interest drives consensus. Therefore, the analogy to Libya would be inappropriate as their objective is not financially driven and the NATO members can not form a consensus on what the objective is. The point in using the NATO example was to show the ability to recognize the chain of command spanning multiple organizations. Not to submit that countries driven by politically different philosophies could agree militarily.

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

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification.

The Preliminary Specification Part XXX (S&AC Part III)

When we talk about the various people within the producer firms affiliated with a Joint Operating Committee. And the number of Joint Operating Committees that a firm may have an interest in. And the number of people a firm may have employed. Access control becomes a big issue. It becomes a big issue when you consider that your people certainly should have the access that you require, but the level of trust that you may have with respect to the other partner organizations is probably not as strong. This is the point of this blog post and how People, Ideas & Objects deal with the access and trust issue in the Security & Access Control module.

When we concern ourselves with the data and information of the firm, and the information that is cleared from the various Joint Operating Committees that the oil and gas producer has an interest in. We can all agree that this information is proprietary and is subject to the internal policies of the producer firm. (Information such as reserves data, accounting information, internal reports and correspondence, strategy documents.) What we are also concerned about is the information and data that is held in the Accounting Voucher and the associated data that is common to the joint account. (well licenses, agreements, production data.) Recall also, in our last post, that relational theory deals with predicate calculus and set theory.

Closer analysis of these two types of data and information that are held within the firm and the Joint Operating Committee fall within the proprietary and public domains. In Canada at least, most of the data and information in a Joint Operating Committee can be freely obtained through various regulatory agencies. Nonetheless, the majority of the data is shared through the partnership, vendors, contract purchasers and a variety of other groups who have an interest in the data and information. Not so for the producer firms data. Most of the information is kept close at hand and is only reported through filtered reserve report summaries and annual reports. Therefore keeping a handle on proprietary data, while operating the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer, as proposed in People, Ideas & Objects, does not therefore present any immediate proprietary data leakage.

Access control can be limited by precluding any company personnel from viewing any other companies files. While in People, Ideas & Objects access control is limited to the Joint Operating Committees of the firm and the firms files only. (Set theory.) To extend this further we would have access control limited to the appropriate roles within the firm, then it is a matter for the user community to define a standard set of generic roles in which access is required to certain data types. This would also apply to the types of operations that can be handled by that role, for example, read, insert, update, delete. These generic roles could then be assigned to each individual within the organization based on their needs. Assigning multiple roles for more complex access.

The assignment of roles for access control can then be looked at from the producer point of view. What areas are deficient in terms of access control, are needed to be covered, and are not. An interface could be provided that would show these deficiencies and then additional roles could be assigned to cover off the areas that were previously deficient. A similar interface would be needed for the Joint Operating Committee so that the data and information needs were being met by the people that were assigned to work there.

Lastly these access control roles are assigned to the various positions within the chain of command that is developed through the Military Command & Control Metaphor of the People, Ideas & Objects application. This would be done to ensure that the people assigned were working in a natural way where the data and information they used was available for them to do their jobs.

By using the Joint Operating Committee as the perspective of how we view our systems brings into alignment all of the frameworks of the business. As we focus on the business of the business there will be areas where the producers will want to limit the exposure of certain data and information from some employees and partners. As we can see with this post, albeit with a little effort, it is certainly possible to maintain the acceptable limits to this information that have become the cultural norm in the oil and gas industry.

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

Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification. Email me here if you need an invite.

The Preliminary Specification Part XXIX (S&AC Part II)

Throughout the Draft and Preliminary Specifications we have discussed one of the premier issues that the oil and gas industry faces. That being the demand for earth science and engineering effort per barrel of oil produced is increasing with each barrel produced. This is best represented in the steep escalation of the costs involved in the exploration and production of oil and gas. At the same time the critical earth science and engineering resources are somewhat fixed and are difficult to expand in the short or medium term. Add to that an anticipated retirement of the brain trust of the industry in the next twenty years and the problem becomes of critical concern.

There are few short term solutions to the short fall in geologist and engineers over the next twenty years. It takes the better part of that time to train them to operate in the industry. What we do know are two things that are being applied in the People, Ideas & Objects software applications modules. Key to these concepts applications are what we call the Military Command & Control Metaphor. The two key concepts are a further specialization and a reduction in the redundant building of capabilities within each oil and gas producer.

The first concept of specialization and division of labor is well known as a principle of economics that brings about greater amount of economic productivity from the same volume of resources. Given that the volume of earth science and engineering resources are known for the foreseeable future, specialization and the division of labor will provide us with a tangible means in which to deal with the productivity of the oil and gas industry. In today’s marketplace to approach a heightened level of specialization and division of labor without the use of software would be down right foolish.

The second concept involves the desire that each producer firm acquires the earth science and engineering capabilities necessary to deal with all the needs of their “operated” properties. This creates unneeded “just-in-case” capabilities for the scarce resources. When each producer within the industry pursues this same strategy substantial redundancies are built in to the industries capabilities. Redundancies that are left unused and unusable. What is proposed through the People, Ideas & Objects software application modules is that the producers operational strategy avoids the “operator” concept and begins pooling the technical resources through the partnership represented in the Joint Operating Committee. That way the redundancies that would have been present in the industry can be made available to the producers and used by the producers through an advanced specialization and division of labor.

What these concepts require therefore is what the Security & Access Control module is designed to provide. As was mentioned in yesterdays post, the system must provide access to the right person at the right time and the right place with the right authority and the right information. With the Military Command & Control Metaphor there will also be a manner in which the technical, and all the resources, that have been pooled from the producers, interact with an appropriate governance and chain of command.

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

Military Command & Control Metaphor - Innovative?

Last week in research question # 1 we asked if the hierarchy’s value had expired. Suggesting that elimination of the hierarchy would require an alternative governance framework to replace the tried and true hierarchy. Recall that the alternative framework we developed in the Draft Specification is what we call the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM). It might seem a contradiction to suggest that the military chain of command enables innovation at the producer level. The military is known for its strict adherence to command and control, how is this going to assist the innovative producer? And isn’t the use of the MCCM going to cause the Joint Operating Committee to be less responsive as a result?

First is the fact that the strict level of adherence is a reflection of the command and control that is implemented. We are attempting to impose an organizational structure on to the various members of the producer firms that have been seconded to the specific Joint Operating Committee. These resources are being sourced from a multitude of organizations, they also continue to have responsibilities to the individual producer that they represent. Therefore imposing this structure allows them to interact, respecting the equivalent military chain of command used, in a manner that is expected of them in both the JOC and at the producer firm that employs them.

Second is the innovative footing that we are striving to provide to both the producer and the JOC. This innovative footing seems counter to the military command and control expectations. Victor Davis Hanson is a well known military historian. In this video at around the 33:00 minute mark, he makes the interesting comment noted just below the video.

I still can’t believe as a military historian that we came up with the idea that a flying fortress was going to go over daylight at about 200 miles an hour and supposedly at 30,000 feet knock out the strategic capability of Germany. And depend on a few 50 calibre machine guns to save this lumbering plane that had as few as nine crew members and they were going to be fighting against the finest fighter pilots in the world in ME-109’s and they think they can pull it off when the British had tried it and had already assumed that it was impossible. And we did that of course and we lost 25,000 Americans, six times more then in the Iraq war, on that flawed concept. But that's the nature of war, live and learn. And out of that we learned what. You could stack formations to increase fire power. You could create drop tanks and have Thunderbolts and Mustangs escort them. You could use radio signals, you could use chafe. And by that trial and error counter response, response, counter response by 1945 the B-17’s were taking a lethal toll on German society and industry. And that is what usually happens in war.

And at 1:01 minutes, based on his experiences Professor Hanson states;

There is more free speech in the military then there is in a university campus.

In this example I see two characteristics at play. The first is the ability of the higher command to maintain the focus on a difficult and costly job for the long term. Secondly, the ability to innovate in the use of the resources to achieve the long term goal, success in its mission. Compare this, or any other military operation, against the capabilities of the hierarchy and I think we can see the use of the Military Command & Control Metaphor will enhance the JOC’s and producers that use, prospectively, People, Ideas & Objects software applications.

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

Technorati Tags: People's Military-Command Review Change Governance Innovation

Research Question # 1

In addition to the Preliminary Research Reports hypothesis and conclusion, noting the Joint Operating Committee is the “natural” form of organization, there were a handful of research questions that were answered in that report. The four questions and their updated answers will be posted here over the remaining part of this week.

The first question was simply, “Has the hierarchy’s value expired?”

This may seem to be an unfair question, but one that most people will have firm opinions on. Alan Murray, Deputy Managing Editor of the Wall Street Journal wrote an interesting piece on the topic in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal. Within the article he documents many of the issues that organizations face. However, it’s the quantity and quality of the comments to the article that show the scope of the debate on the hierarchy’s future. One can clearly see the two camps forming and the ability to influence each other is at somewhat of a stale mate. Opinions are well formed with differing perspectives of the same facts, note the discussion regarding the development of Boeing’s 787 aircraft. This argument has only begun.

Those who believe that we will continue with the hierarchy number in the minority at this point in time. Those that support the hierarchy would assert, correctly, that their needs to be some form of replacement governance model. You just can’t eliminate the well defined model that governs the oil and gas producers organizations. Although we had not developed an alternative in the Preliminary Research report, we eventually did publish the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) that provides the replacement governance model for both the Joint Operating Committee and producer firms.

By adopting the well understood military chain of command. Applying it over the producer firms involved in a JOC. Allows teams comprised of members from different firms to operate as required within the specific JOC. This pooling of the available technical resources replicates in many ways the manner in which the NATO countries military resources are able to operate.

The ability to pool technical and scientific resources from several of the producers participating within one JOC is critical. Each firm currently have dedicated technical resources and capabilities built within each producer firm. The luxury of having each firm with mutually exclusive technical resources may be over. With each barrel of oil requiring progressively more earth science and engineering, the demand for these resources may begin to outstrip supply. Additionally the time required to train new earth scientists and engineers does not provide for the potential retirement of the brain trust. These resource constraints can be resolved through the use of the MCCM and pooling of the technical resources of the producer firms.

Therefore, the answer to the question for the oil and gas producer is the hierarchy’s value has expired. It is a model that deals with the firms needs, but ignores the JOC. What the successfully innovative producer needs is a governance model that deals with both the producer firm and the JOC’s that they have an interest in. (Particularly when the operational decision making framework resides with the JOC.) For further reading on this topic please review the MCCM of the Draft Specification.

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

Technorati Tags: People's Review Specification Research Military-Command

S + B's Big Oil's Big Shift

We have today a remarkable article from Booz & Co’s “Strategy + Business” (S + B). Prospective users of People, Ideas & Objects software applications and members of the Community of Independent Service Providers need to see that the work that they can do at People, Ideas & Object is topical, and hence valuable. This S + B article entitled “Big Oil’s Big Shift” provides an understanding of some of the issues in oil and gas. Many of the points in the article are specifically addressed in the Draft Specification. Although S + B considers the majority of these issues arise as a result of the BP Gulf of Mexico spill, to many, these issues were evident irrespective of the spill.

The targeted market for the People, Ideas & Objects software applications is the entire oil and gas industry. This definition includes start up oil and gas companies, independents, International Oil Companies (IOC’s) and National Oil Companies (NOC’s). All of these firms use the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) systemically throughout their organizations.

Risk has always been inherent in the extraordinarily complex projects that extract oil from the ground or sea. During the past few years, industry trends have added to this risk. The most accessible and productive oil fields, including those in the Middle East and Russia, are now owned and operated solely by national oil companies (NOCs). Leading international oil companies (IOCs) such as BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell — also known as the oil majors — therefore find their access to “easy” reserves rapidly shrinking.

For the reasons noted in the above quotation, People, Ideas & Objects believes the four classes of producers will partner to approach the remaining technically difficult and demanding reserves. Therefore it is imperative that these JOC’s and partnerships are able to deal with any combination of producer classes, in as many geographical areas as necessary. Access to an ERP system that can identify and support these different producers business operations is therefore a necessity.

Supporting the interactions between producers within a JOC is only the beginning. The ability to work closely with the service industries is also a necessity. The Draft Specifications Resource Marketplace module provides the ability for the producers represented in the JOC to deal more closely with service providers in the service industries, communities and contractors. The Draft Specification also provides a new governance model to facilitate these interactions through the Military Command & Control Metaphor. S + B states:

But the oil majors will have to manage their contractors differently, working more closely in teams with business partners that earn their trust over a long period of time, and in some cases taking stakes in third-party providers to better control their performance. This partnership model must be built on interdependence and mutual respect — a significant change from long- standing practices in some parts of the sector. The oil majors will also need to revise their operating models, sorting out a different mix of activities to outsource, and bringing some of the most critical oversight functions back in-house — so they can address quality issues and place employees on the front line to better oversee the growing situational risk in oil drilling.

To make this possible requires management to fall on their sword. As I have noted in each of this blogs recent closings, management are conflicted, and the executives at the producer firms need to make the decisions to financially support these developments.

Perhaps the biggest uncertainty in this new and challenging business environment is the ability of the major oil companies to change as conditions shift measurably. Most large oil companies — including both international oil majors and state-owned NOCs — have rigid management cultures and adversarial, penny- pinching relationships with suppliers and partners. Historically, they have tended to focus on short-term cost cutting without sufficient consideration for collaborative operations that could benefit themselves and their partners.

Lastly, S + B notes that the time for these changes to become effective is now. Prospective users and members of the Community of Independent Service Providers will be the ones at the forefront of these changes.

Many people in the oil industry have foreseen these types of changes, but they haven’t been forced to act. Now they will be. Those who figure out how to move beyond their past practices, troubled contractor relationships, and rigid management structures will lead the next generation in the oil sector — on land, in shallow waters, and in deep and remote locations. The time for these changes could come surprisingly soon. 

Society is put in peril when world oil production declines. There is evidence that the world's oil production has declined. Therefore the world needs to have the energy industry expand its production. To do so requires that we reorganize to enhance the division of labor and specialization within the industry. As economic development has proven, reorganization would achieve far greater oil and gas production. Management of the industry is conflicted in expanding the output of the industry. The less they do, the higher the oil and gas prices and the better they appear to perform. This managerial conflict must be addressed and the performance of the industry unleashed. To do so requires the current management of the industry to fund People, Ideas & Objects and build the systems as defined in the Draft Specification. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Phase-Two Call-to-action Governance Military-Command

The Division of Labor

The question has been asked, how does the Draft Specification implement a renewed division of labor and specialization? This is a good question, and one who's answer is not fully described in the Draft Specification. I want to be mindful that I don’t interfere in the development of the Preliminary and subsequent specifications. These developments are user driven developments, for me to interfere by commenting on certain aspects would have serious consequences. Users need to know it is they who have the power to make the changes they need. I see this question as being a further clarification of the Draft Specification, and since there are no developments currently being conducted, I do not see any risk in answering this question at this point in time. I will however mention that my perspective may be limited, that the community will be able to add substantially to these points.

To revisit why the division of labor and specialization are important to the oil and gas industry. It simply is the sole source of any economic development. As time passes and the reorganization of industries continues, a further division of labor through greater individual specialization increases the economic output of fixed resources. Therefore to increase the volume of oil and gas production, it is necessary to reorganize the industry based on a more defined division of labor. In this globalized economy, the need to employ software to manage the division of labor is a necessity. The energy industry therefore needs a software development capability, such as that offered here by People, Ideas & Objects, to expand its output.

In our recent review of Professor Langlois we stumbled upon the solution to this difficult question. Recall his words were “gap-filling” in terms of Industrial Districts and Business Groups. The filling of gaps is the process of identifying areas where work needs to be done. The process of going about and filling those gaps is how the division of labor is expanded.

The primary People, Ideas & Objects software modules that enable the identification of gaps is in the Resource Marketplace, Knowledge & Learning, Research & Capabilities modules and the Military Command & Control Metaphor. The Draft Specification is silent on this capability and as I mentioned earlier, this posts content should be considered clarification and possibly an addition to the spec.

Imagine for a moment that the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) has a distribution of the people that are assigned specific tasks to be completed. These can be seen as within the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) that details the organization and the roles and responsibilities of the people involved. Imagine for a moment that the makeup of the MCCM in the JOC can be compared to a “template” of the optimal distribution or known division of labor. A software driven comparison of the two charts, the MCCM to the template, shows the “gaps” that need to be filled. This same analysis could also be applied in the same fashion for the roles and responsibilities of an individual producer.

How much of this analysis is unique and confidential to the applicable JOC or producer is unknown at this time. It is reasonable to assume that their might also be prototypical industry division of labor templates that are developed within the Community of Independent Service Providers. Where members of the CISP have specialized in increasing organizational output through analysis of the division of labor of JOC’s and producers.

Society is put in peril when world oil production declines. There is evidence that the world's oil production has declined. Therefore the world needs to have the energy industry expand its production. To do so requires that we reorganize to enhance the division of labor and specialization within the industry. As has been proven, this reorganization could achieve far greater oil and gas production. Management of the industry is conflicted in expanding the output of the industry. The less they do, the higher the oil and gas prices and the better they appear to perform. This managerial conflict must be addressed and the performance of the industry unleashed. To do so requires the current management of the industry to fund People, Ideas & Objects and build the systems as defined in the Draft Specification. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Langlois Organization Community Military-Command Specification

Langlois, Economic Institutions Part IV

This will be our last post on Professor Richard Langlois July 2009 paper "Economic Institutions and the Boundaries of the Firm: The Case of Business Groups." Langlois analysis of Business Groups (BG) follows on our review of his work on Industrial Districts (ID's), Professor Carlota Perez' Small Knowledge Intensive Enterprises (SKIE) and People, Ideas & Objects Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP). What ever we may call these "institutions", they all seek to build the "market-supporting" infrastructure of an industry. Although there is a strong service sector supporting the oil and gas industry, it does not have the market-supporting institutions necessary for it to qualify as a BG, SKIE, ID or CISP. What is needed, critically, is an ERP styled software development capability that supports these communities. A capability that supports the innovation that is occurring in these communities. Langlois helps to further define the decentralized nature of the concept that I am referring to: (For the remainder of this post I will use communities to describe ID, SKIE, BG or CISP.)

So far I have talked generally about vertical integration and disintegration, not specifically about business groups. And I have yet to engage the third level of contingent facts, political institutions. I now propose to argue that business groups and political institutions are closely related; indeed, in some of their forms, they are the same thing.

Scholars generally distinguish business groups from more loosely arranged structures like business networks. “When ownership and control are more centralized and organizational subunits enjoy limited autonomy, the commonly used term is business groups. When subunits enjoy more autonomy with respect to ownership, control, and operations, interfirm network is the correct term. In other words, business groups are more centralized and closely held, while interfirm networks are more decentralized and loosely held” (Fruin 2008). Indeed, in some eyes, the “groupness” of a business group is orthogonal to its structure of corporate governance. Mark Granovetter (1995, p. 95) considers business groups to be “collections of firms bound together in some formal and/or informal ways, characterized by an ‘intermediate’ level of binding.” Purely anonymous market relations don't qualify in Granovetters definition; but neither do American-style conglomerates, whose wholly owned divisions have little connection with one another and are but modular pieces on the financial chessboard. But a variety of governance structures, from hierarchical and structured chaebols on the one hand to Marshallian industrial districts (Marshall 1920, IV.x.3) on the other, would qualify as business groups in Granovetter’s sense. p. 21

Therefore, providing a governance model is a necessity for these communities. The Draft Specification implements the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) to provide a governance structure. Originally conceived to provide a pooling of the resources of each producer within a Joint Operating Committee, the definition was expanded to include the necessary technical resources that can be sourced from the communities as reflected in the Resource Marketplace Module. This enables a JOC to cobble together the necessary people to implement their plans. Each of these people are able to quickly determine theirs and others qualifications in terms of their experience, training and skills. Once assigned their role in completing the tasks, they can also see how others are able to interact within the process. Gaps will begin to show. And the innovative solutions necessary to fill those gaps will begin. Without a global industry wide governance model as contemplated in the Draft Specification, innovation will remain the domain of the bureaucracy.

Explaining the existence of business groups in Granovetter’s sense is arguably easier than explaining the mantle of ownership and governance those groups take on. “Intermediate” linkages are essential to the process of gap-filling. Links among entrepreneurs, whether formal or informal, permit the sharing of information about gaps and encourage the coordination of necessary complements (Kock and Guillén 2001). p. 22

As a result of implementing this governance structure, there is an increased potential of innovation within the community! I am making the connection that the market-supporting institutions the oil and gas industry needs are the MCCM and the Draft Specification.

There may yet be another explanation. Even in developed open-access societies, pyramidal business groups may exist because they play a gap-filling role. In this case, the issue is not vertical integration but governance. In developed economies – which increasingly means one integrated global economy – markets are relatively thick and market-supporting institutions relatively abundant, making it possible to coordinate complementary activities in a decentralized way. But there are still gaps: new products, new processes, new ways of organizing, new profit opportunities to seize. p. 27

The gap's that need to be filled become more obvious as a result of implementing the MCCM governance structure over the community. As gaps are filled, more gaps become noticeable. The capacity to change is highly dependent on the software that these communities will use. If that software is static, then their will be only one iteration of gap filing. What the industry needs to do is to iterate on the earth sciences and engineering disciplines, and innovations based on those sciences.

But even in “developed” economies, novelty and change creates the sorts of gaps that call for business groups, including less-formal sets of “intermediate” relationships, as, for example, in geographic (or, increasingly, “virtual”) industrial districts. In this sense, the economics of organization generally can learn from the literature on business groups outside the developed world. The problem of gap-filling in highly developed economies differs from that in less-developed economies because the path ahead is cloudier, which suggests that more-decentralized organizational structures may be more successful at the cutting-edge of technology. p. 29

In today's energy marketplace we see many examples of how the industry is failing. I believe the expectation that today's oil and gas company can transform themselves into these communities is unreasonable. An expectation that will lead to disappointment. With the debt crisis about to play out across the global economy, I expect those producers that are carrying even reasonable amounts of debt to be severely constrained in the short to mid-term. This during a time when the industry needs to be as innovative as it can just to keep its costs under control. Whether the industry as it stands today will look the same in ten years isn't the point. The point is that we need to enable these types of capabilities within the industry irrespective of the oil and gas companies actions. The industry will need to be built brick-by-brick and stick-by-stick to enable these types of attributes to become the norm. The bureaucracies have chosen not to participate. It's now up to these communities to begin this process by starting with People, Ideas & Objects.

Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially 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 Langlois Governance Military-Command Innovation Capabilities Community CISP
 

Langlois, Innovation and Processs Part IV

Today our review of Professor Langlois' paper "Innovation Process & Industrial Districts" will look at part 4., the negative effects of embeddedness. Embeddedness is defined as "the degree to which individuals or firms are enmeshed in a social network". Langlois "investigates the effects of social embeddedness on innovation". Noting that;

Furthermore, there may be a relationship between the degree of embeddedness in the industrial district and innovation. It has been suggested that innovation increases as embeddedness increases, up to a point, and that beyond that point further embeddedness results in reduced innovation performance at the firm level (Uzzi, 1997; Boschma, 2005).3 Thus, depending on circumstances, participation in an industrial district can either encourage or impede innovation.

Therefore certain levels of embeddedness in each community of practice is necessary. These communities of practice would consist of local, regional, national and international communities. With access and participation in each by those that work within oil and gas and the service industries. What Professor Langlois explores in this section of the paper is the extent that embeddedness can be under / overdone.

4. Negative Effects of Embeddedness

Oil and gas' difficulty is the escalating earth science and engineering effort contained within each barrel of oil. With finite human resources, the Preliminary Research Report suggested that the industry turn away from its "banking" mentality of providing fixed returns on investments, and focus on its scientific attributes to generate value. These scientific difficulties are understood through out the industry. Much is being learned by everyone by BP's actions in the Gulf of Mexico. It is this learning and sharing of information in each of the communities of practice that Langlois refers to as embeddedness.

Much of impetus behind innovation may nevertheless derive from events outside a district - as a result of innovations developed elsewhere and of shifts in consumer demand. The survival of firms, and of entire IDs, therefore depends largely on their ability to adjust to external development. Indeed, Piore and Sabel's (1984) championing of industrial districts was based largely on their contention that small firms with generic equipment are more flexible in responding to shifts in demand than large, capital intensive firms with substantial investments in dedicated equipment. p. 14

BP's current failures will benefit the industry as a whole. Many will ask why the Gulf has to be exposed to such environmental risk? Here I think that Langlois intimates at where some of the problem may lay.

Nevertheless, the factors underlying successful innovation in some industrial districts may turn out to be weaknesses depending on the broader innovation environment within a trade or industry. Firms in an ID may simply be slow to notice changes arising outside their district because they do not have good external channel of communication. As Marshall (Loasby, 1990) recognized, close relationships among firms and their workers could reduce their access to knowledge developed outside the district and their willingness to consider ideas from unfamiliar or distant sources. p. 15

and

Paradoxically this failure of firms is possible after their IDs have had a period of market leadership. they become over-confident and suffer from what Alberti (2006) calls "success myopia". The result is that trends in innovation (and not just innovation per se) in an ID tend to suffer from inertia - that once tendencies develop, they are harder to stop or to reverse than might be the case if knowledge were generally collected far and wide and if new knowledge were not generated to accommodate implicitly standardized local interfaces. this can lead to severe, perhaps fatal difficulties when the district is not at the leading edge or when consumer tastes have changed. p.15

Definitely sounds like the Gulf of Mexico. Those that are not familiar with the oil and gas industry are frustrated by the efforts of BP. Why not just turn the well off? Why didn't someone think of these problems and have them solved in case of this type of event? Why are actions being taken at such a slow pace? It seems so elementary and yet the industry never considered the possibility of a blow out preventer failing in 5,000 feet of water.

In defense of the industry, the science has become pre-eminent. The Gulf of Mexico shows exactly the extent of these difficulties and tomorrow will not be any easier. Looking at the logarithmic decline curve of a reserve report focuses the mind and in my opinion limits the risks of the possibility of overconfidence. However, the scope of the overall sciences is too great for the means of organizational structures being currently employed. The scientists are working as hard as they can, it's the organizational constraints of the bureaucracy that are causing these problems. Then I could be biased towards building systems to identify and support the Joint Operating Committee in a fashion as described in the Draft Specification. Langlois would suggest that the level of embeddedness is "not enough" for the situation in the Gulf of Mexico.

Boschma (2005) argues that "too much and too little proximity are both detrimental to learning and innovation. that is, to function properly, proximity requires" just the right amount of distance between actors or organizations. geographic proximity, for example, may enhance inter-organizational learning and innovation though in the absence of geographic proximity other forms of proximity may substitute for it. On the other hand, too intense proximity, geographic and otherwise, can result in lock-in. Proximity / embeddedness can evolve over time too, from not enough, to just enough, to too much, suggesting a link between the issues of embeddednesss and life cycle considerations. p. 15

I am not suggesting that a free-for-all of ideas being thrown at BP would have helped. Ideas developed without structure and governance are useless to any of the firms residing in any community of practice. This is an area where the Draft Specifications Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) would enable the right type of ideas to percolate to the top. For example, if, the MCCM was in play in the situation in the Gulf of Mexico. Having everyone in the global oil and gas and service industries designated with a "name, rank and serial number" (etc.) would allow those ideas from participants who work in offshore oil and gas, who are senior engineers, who are intimate with sub-sea operations, be found instantly. In addition if there was a community of practice that existed with the MCCM implying some structure, would the social embeddedness of these individuals have thought of and possibly thought through some of the issues that would have arisen? I think so, but then again I am biased.

For instance, decentralized systems of innovation ( including industrial districts may be at a disadvantage in generating genuinely systemic innovations (Teece 1986), that is, innovations that require the development of new components as well as new ways of integrating components In such a case, the location of much of the relevant knowledge within a tightly coupled systems is likely to facilitate innovation. This need not mean a single vertically integrated firm, but it does mean that lead or coordinating firms - in modern terminology, systemic integrators - must possess a wise range of knowledge or capability and must indeed "know more than they do' (Bruisoni, Prencipe, and Pavitt, 2001). They also need to be powerful enough to force other firms to follow their lead. p. 16

Seeing who has been designated as the "Red Adair" in offshore blowouts would have helped before and after a situation like this. And maybe this individual foresaw the difficulties in offshore blow out preventer's. And allocated a small budget of his engineering firm to research the idea that these could fail. And maybe they would have been well on their way to solving the problem when the incident happened. The alternative today is that the engineering firm would have had to fully developed the solution and marketed it throughout the industry for the oil and gas firm to turn their thumbs down on the idea. As we see in the Gulf today, we can't work this way anymore. Langlois notes;

In addition, their reliance on local standards can impede efforts by firms in an ID to indigenize innovation form outside, again raising the costs of adjustment and the time required. Finally, firms with a mature ID that do develop innovations may not only find it difficult to generate interest within their ID but are poorly placed to market their innovations externally. p. 16

Without these communities of practice in place, where is BP today? The costs of this disaster may seriously impede the firm. BP could face costs in the range of $10 billion with additional damage to the wells reserves. All because management didn't foresee that the innovations of offshore drilling moved ahead of the science. In the scenario that I provided before, where the engineer proposed a solution to what he saw as faulty offshore blow out preventer's. In today's marketplace management will thumb its nose at these ideas. In the future it may solve the problem and eliminate these costs.

People, Ideas & Objects asserts in the Draft Specification that the oil and gas producer is concerned with their asset base and application of the scientific and innovation capabilities of the marketplace. This is represented in the Resource Marketplace, Knowledge & Leaning, Research & Capabilities, and Accounting Voucher modules and the Military Command & Control Metaphor being extended to the communities of practice. If BP adopted this strategy of focusing on their assets and capabilities, where would they be today?

Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially 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 Langlois Failure Management Community Innovation Science Military-Command Offshore
 

Professor's Baldwin and von Hipple V

Part V of our review of Professor Baldwin's and von Hipple's working paper "Modelling a Paradigm Shift: From Producer Innovation to User and Open Collaboration Innovation." Lets assume for a moment the knowledge of how the oil and gas industry could be codified by 1,000 people. Much as the people are being organized and their contributions codified in the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. Speaking prospectively, irrespective of the fact that these people are members of the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP) and they earn their living through the contributions they make to the software, and their oil and gas producer clients. What's in it for them. Baldwin and von Hipple make the following point clear.

User innovators will choose to participate in an open collaborative innovation project if the increased communication cost each incurs by joining the project is more than offset by the value of designs obtained from others. To formalize this idea, assume that a large-scale innovation opportunity is perceived by a group of N communicating designers. As rational actors, each member of the group (indexed by i) will estimate the value of the large design and parse it into two subsets: (1) that part, valued at vsi, which the focal individual can complete himself at a reasonable cost (by definition, vsi > dsi); and (2) that part, valued at voi, which would be “nice to have”, but which he cannot complete at a reasonable cost given his skills and other sticky information on hand (by definition voi ≤ doi ).

Turning to the oil and gas producer, what's in it for them to support the People, Ideas & Objects developers and the associated CISP? Clearly the User innovations as Baldwin and von Hipple call them applies to the producer as well. They have access to a system that replicates any and all processes within the oil and gas industry. It's not that they need to have all those processes managed, but it is possible for them to run their firm in the most profitable manner by using People, Ideas & Objects and the CISP. The costs of the software are as little as a $1.00 per year per barrel of oil equivalent daily production. Yet they too are benefiting from these open collaborative innovations in the same manner the CISP is.

Consider finally the model of open collaborative innovation. Recall that open collaborative innovation projects involve users and others who share the work of generating a design and also reveal the outputs from their individual and collective design efforts openly for anyone to use. In such projects, some participants benefit from the design itself – directly in the case of users, indirectly in the case of suppliers or users of complements that are increased in value by that design. Each of these incurs the cost of doing some fraction of the work but obtains the value of the entire design, including additions and improvements generated by others. Other participants obtain private benefits such as learning, reputation, fun, etc that are not related to the project’s innovation outputs. For ease of exposition, we will derive the bounds of the model for user innovators first, and then consider the impact of other participants on those bounds.

Simple, but why has this not been done to date? Clearly the costs of collaboration on a large scale have dropped to minuscule levels. The Internet not only reduced the costs but also enabled these formerly disparate groups to associate with little to no costs. The only requirements to finding other groups of interested people is to Google the topics of your interest.

This is the first bound on the open collaborative innovation model. It establishes the importance of communication cost and technology for the viability of the open collaborative model of innovation. The lower the cost of communicating with the group, the lower the threshold other members’ contributions must meet to justify an attempt to collaborate. Higher communication costs affect inequality (5) in two ways: they increase the direct cost of contributing and they reduce the probability that others will reciprocate. It follows that if communication costs are high, an open collaborative project cannot get off the ground. But if communication costs are low for everyone, it is rational for each member of the group to contribute designs to the general pool and expect that others will contribute complementary designs or improve on his own design. This is in fact the pattern observed in successful open source projects and other forums of open collaborative innovation (Raymond, 1999; Franke and Shah, 2003; Baldwin et. al. 2006; Lakhani and von Hippel, 2009).

It would have been prohibitive, boring and frustrating to attempt the collaboration design of the Preliminary Specification without the Internet. Communication and design costs would have escalated to exorbitant amounts and the quality of the end product would be far less then the "open" collaboration design that Baldwin and von Hipple write about and is being employed by People, Ideas & Objects for this software development. There's more. As in this next quotation, the scope and scale of these designs can now be undertaken. The 2010 budget for the preliminary specification has been set at $10 million, yet the scope of the application is far greater then any other application designed in the oil and gas marketplace.

Note that this bound is N times greater than the bound on the design cost of the average single user innovator. Thus given low-enough costs of communication, open collaborative user innovators operating within a task-divisible and modular architecture can pursue much larger innovation opportunities than single user innovators acting alone.

The importance of this fact is how individuals should reconcile the ambition of this project to the reality of life. Building an application that uses the "industry" perspective through the JOC brings the scope to a frighteningly large level. The JOC is a generic organizational structure that is and can be populated by any number of changing numbers of producers and the people that work within the oil and gas industry. The use of the JOC in the Draft Specification is what demands open collaborative innovation design. Critical to making this an operational possibility is the ability of the Preliminary Specification to implement the Draft Specifications Military Command & Control Metaphor as a key cornerstone of the Compliance & Governance module.

But if communication costs are low enough to clear these hurdles, then the second bound [(6) and (6’)] shows that, using a modular design architecture as a means of coordinating their work, a collaborative group can develop an innovative design that is many times larger in scale than any single member of the group could manage alone.

Figure 3 in the paper shows that the Open Collaboration Innovation is able to approach a far higher level of design sophistication then the Producer Innovators. At no time before has this level of design sophistication been possible nor has the scope and scale been so (relatively) easy to approach. Producers and Users, and particularly members of the Community of Independent Service Providers stand to gain substantially from their contributions to this project. The overall design is comprehensive and ambitious. Today's technologies, and particularly the Internet, enable the type of systems design that the Draft and Preliminary Specifications involve. And although I don't think I mentioned the last two phases of the design publicly before. Now would be a good time to note that the Preliminary Specification will be used in a similar manner to the Detailed and Final Specifications. (Please note with a lag of six months the Detailed Specification can be completed concurrently to the Preliminary Specification.) The costs, which are budgeted at $10 million for the Preliminary Specification are negligible. To participate in these development as a supporting producer please follow our Funding Policies and Procedures here. And if you want to participate as a User or a member of the Community of Independent Service Providers please join us here.

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

More constructive changes.

In my last post I showed how the Information Technologies needed to be monitored more closely by oil and gas companies. Noting that SAP's Gravity application was too powerful to be put in the hands of users without a method to ensure the technologies did not violate the compliance and governance models. This is a type of risk that I have identified many times in the past few years. A risk that grows larger each day.

It's one thing to criticize and another to provide solutions. That is what the Draft Specification is about, providing the innovative oil and gas producer with the vision, community, tools and methods needed to ensure they are compliant and working within their compliance and governance requirements. Management have chosen to stick with their bureaucracies and SAP, which defines and supports the management, for their own purposes. This blog has targeted the shareholders and investors that own the oil and gas companies, are dissatisfied with their managements, and see the Draft Specification as an alternative.

I mentioned the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) in my last post. That's for the members of the Joint Operating Committee to establish a chain of command and governance of the assets managed by the JOC. That an engineer from company A, a geologist from company B and an administrator from company C can see that the authority and responsibility are held by certain individuals and are capable, authorized and responsible for making the decisions for that JOC. This would be expanded to include the designated staff from each producer who are part of the JOC, the field operations people and those that may be consultants and / or suppliers to the property.

Not to get too off track here, I want to make a point that has not been stated before. The source of the People in the CISP are globally sourced. This provides the producer with the best possible means of having the most competitive offerings available to them.

The MCCM and the Compliance & Governance Module of the Draft Specification are designed to instill a JOC with the requisite authority, command and control based on the compliance and governance requirements. In a world where the number of people that work for a JOC may total thousands, having anything but a highly dynamic and flexible work force can only be managed by the ultra slow bureaucracy or the MCCM of the Draft Specification. If we are to expand the economic performance of the oil and gas industry we will need a more defined division of labor. A global marketplace of the talents necessary to expand the performance of the oil and gas industry. To suggest anything else is irresponsible, and SAP should know better.

How is it that the software development being undertaken by People, Ideas & Objects is able to employ the MCCM? The methods of how the development is undertaken is User involved. The User base, or as they are referred to here as the Community of Independent Service Providers or CISP is composed of the entire population of the industry. This entire population of the industry is also part of the Resource Marketplace Module. A module that provides People from suppliers, producers and vendors to market, engage and build business relationships. Where their qualifications and capabilities are able to designate their offerings as their potential role in the JOC based on the MCCM. It is then the producers of the JOC to engage in the resource and establish the transactions between the producer and its suppliers / vendors / CIPS. And designate the individuals with the requisite authority, responsibility, task, calendar etc. of the JOC. People, Ideas & Objects being part of the CISP can be included in the JOC's MCCM and therefore undertake the appropriate software developments and have the JOC with the requisite authority to make the changes to the software.

Our competitive advantage, of both People, Ideas & Objects and the CISP is to provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Dare I ask what SAP or Oracle provides the oil and gas producer. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Military-Command CISP Governance Capabilities
 

Framework Alignment

One of the attributes of an SAP system is the ability to maintain the corporate entities compliance and governance. When a firm needs reporting to the SEC or the various tax authorities, SAP provides a solid foundation or framework for that requirement.

In oil and gas the Joint Operating Committee is the legal, financial, cultural, communication and operational decision making framework. It is the business of the business of the oil and gas industry and SAP knows nothing of its existence.

What People, Ideas & Objects is developing is a replacement for the SAP ERP system. One that is purpose built and designed by its users for the oil and gas producer. A system that aligns the compliance and governance frameworks with the five frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. An alignment that eliminates the conflict between operational authority and accountability. An alignment that identifies and supports the key attributes of an innovative oil and gas producer.

In my opinion SAP provides the compliance and governance that is necessary for the public oil and gas producer. But these are not the drivers of the business. The Compliance & Governance Module of the People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification provide the same compliance and governance that SAP provides, however, with several differences. Instead of being the driving reason of the administration of the firm, the compliance and governance are processes that fall out of the actions and processes conducted within the Joint Operating Committee.

One of the major issues that is presented by using the Draft Specification is the governance model. With the Joint Operating Committee taking a larger and more prominent roll in the day to day management of the asset. Influence and contributions come from many different corporate entities. What is needed is a governance method that can appropriately manage the asset and meet the compliance and governance needs of the producers who make up the JOC. These are the reasons that the Draft Specification has developed and introduced the Military Command & Control Metaphor governance model.

Although moving to identifying and supporting the JOC brings issues like the compliance and governance model into question. Methods to overcome these issues are sound and are enabled for one reason, in my opinion. And that is the natural way that the JOC operates within the industry. The Draft Specification is simply aligning itself with not only the five frameworks of the JOC, but the natural way in which the industry operates. This is also the reason why SAP fails in oil and gas, please join me here in building this worthwhile system.

Technorati Tags: People's Governance Military-Command Tradition Accountability

Google's Wave

With Google Wave I think we have a clear direction where the future of Information Technology is headed. There is an hour and twenty minute video of the Google Developers Conference announcement of their Wave product. Although it is early, I do not see to many hurdles to having the product shipping. Clearly the technology is not the key attribute of the value of the Wave product, its the implementation.

Lets quickly dispatch the techno speak with this one paragraph. Wave is open source, Java and uses the Google Web Toolkit. (Renders browser based code from Java.) All within the technology stack used by People, Ideas & Objects. The one technology that is not available is the W3C's HTML 5. I do not foresee HTML 5 having too much difficulty in being implemented quickly. HTML 5 provides some persistent data storage which is provided by the able Google Gears in the product demonstration.

So why is Google Wave an important technology for users and producers of People, Ideas & Objects. I will be augmenting the Draft Specification to include the video and this text. If we go back through this blog and the ideas that were used to build the Draft Specification. We focus on three key areas and some minor additional points. The three key areas in descending order of relevance are the Accounting Voucher Module, Military Command & Control Metaphor and Security & Access Control Module.

Recall in the Accounting Voucher we are capturing the changes in the business on a month to month basis. As "things" happen they are captured and recorded in the Accounting Voucher for future use. If this isn't making any sense then please review the Accounting Voucher part of the Draft Specification to better understand what it is that I am saying. The accounting changes that are captured in the Voucher are the discussions, documents and decisions that are made. The Accounting Voucher is capturing and recording the financial impact of these changes. It is the Google Wave infrastructure that we inherit, by using its open source code, and enhance it to incorporate the ability to capture these financial changes.

As the video reflects, we acquire these in a unique interface provided by Google. Representatives of the various producers on the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) interact on the topics of interest in the JOC. These are in documents, asynchronous communication, synchronous communications and in all the media available. The mode of these interactions are person to person, person to process, process to person and process to process as I noted in the Preliminary Research Report. A rich environment that provides the media, mode and method of communications that are necessary to support the innovative oil and gas producer.

The Military Command & Control Metaphor is used throughout the Draft Specification as the means to provide the dynamic resources provided by the producer members of the JOC. Much as the pooling of military resources is done by the NATO forces, the People, Ideas & Objects application is able to dynamically assign the corporate governance, authority, role and responsibility necessary to efficiently and innovatively manage the Joint Account. This Metaphor is used throughout the application, but most importantly one that controls the interaction of the communication and documentation contained within the Google Wave open sourced code.

Lastly I want to reiterate the importance of the Security & Access Control Modules use of Sun Microsystems Federated Identity software as the means to ensure these corporate governance needs are maintained in such a dynamic manner. I would encourage readers to spend some time in these elements of the People, Ideas & Objects application. It is an area that I think the innovation could and will prosper and is ripe for the users to exploit for their advantage; and please join us here.

Technorati Tags: People's Military-Command Development Specification