Oil & Gas Arbitrage: The Market Finds a Way

 Our fifth paper of 2025… 

Oil & Gas Arbitrage: The Market Finds a Way. 

Citadel’s Hedge Fund Begins Rebuilding and Reconstructing Oil & Gas. The Final Cornerstone is in Place

Can be downloaded here. 

Hyper specialization, Artificial Intelligence & Intellectual Property

 As promised our paper looks at the dynamic interactions that are a result of People, Ideas & Objects use of Hyper Specialization, Artificial Intelligence, and Intellectual Property for our user community and their service providers. The paper entitled…

Hyper Specialization in Today’s AI & IP Enabled Workforce: 

 Strategic Implications and Operational Consequences 

for the Oil & Gas Sector 

This is our third paper of 2025 that deals exclusively with our user community and their service providers. Download your copy here before all the shooting starts again. 

And Another!

 I’m pleased to confirm that our February 10, 2025, paper—  

Characteristics of Entrepreneurs and Innovators:  

How Elon Musk and Others Excel in Constructing Today’s High-Performance Organizations 

Strategies for Emulating Their Success Within Our User Community 

will be published on schedule.

I can also announce a fourth deliverable for 2025, slated for release on March 17, 2025, under the current working title:  

Hyperspecialization: Its Impacts and Consequences for 

Our User Communities and 

Service Provider Organizations.

A New Hypothesis

Throughout our writings and particularly in the Preliminary Specification there is the understanding that organizational change will only occur after the software has enabled the changes first. That we are dependent on software in our organizations and as defined in Professor Anthony Giddens Structuration theory, we are enabled and constrained by these structures. Our hypothesis takes this understanding and extends it across the economic horizon. And concludes that as a result of the inability, or lack of capability, to amend the ERP software in organizations today, economic growth has stalled. We are, or should be, wholly dependent on a deliberate and purposeful pursuit of specialization and the division of labor. That the concept of spontaneous order, which is necessary for specialization and the division of labor, is eliminated through the use ERP software systems.

It was in the Preliminary Research Report that we first discovered Professor Anthony Giddens Structuration theory and Professor Wanda Orlikowski model of Structuration. In terms of its definition we have this quote from Olga Volkoff

From the perspective of structuration theory, adaptation is the joint effect of the actions of individuals and the institutional structures which those actions take place. Structures such as business strategies, organizational culture, reward and control systems, patterns of communication, and professional norms both enable and constrain the daily activities of people, but do not wholly determine them. 

ERP systems, particularly those installed in the larger organizations, are the modern equivalent of pouring concrete into your organization. The ability to make even a small change in a process requires the dedication and sacrifice of several peoples careers. The importance of this is possibly lost on the following two quotations. First is Fredrich Hayek on spontaneous order.

It is the other way round: man has been able to develop that division of labor on which our civilization is based because he happened to stumble upon a method which made it possible. Had he not done so, he might still have developed some other, altogether different, type of civilization, something like the "state" of the termite ants, or some other altogether unimaginable type.

And this next quotation is from Professor Richard Langlois. It describes how specialization and the division of labor are expanded.

Let’s take a closer look at the nature of the “gaps” involved. Adam Smith tells us in the first sentence of The Wealth of Nations that what accounts for “the greatest improvement in the productive power of labour” is the continual subdivision of that labor (Smith 1976, I.i.1). Growth in the extent of the market makes it economical to specialize labor to tasks and tools, which increases productivity – and productivity is the real wealth of nations. As the benefits of the resulting increases in per capita output find their way into the pockets of consumers, the extent of the market expands further, leading to additional division of labor – and so on in a self-reinforcing process of organizational change and learning (Richardson 1975; Young 1928). p. 7

People, Ideas & Objects provide a software development capability to the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer. Our revenue model is structured to support change. To avoid the difficulties that are evident in the economy today. To provide solutions to the issues that occur in the oil and gas industry. Solutions in both the administrative and in the operational domain. Operational issues such as our decentralized production model which provides the oil and gas producer with 2012 opportunity costs in the area of $94 billion. The decentralized production model can not be achieved in any manner other than by programming the industry through software. It is that simple, and that matter of fact, that we rely to this extent on software today. It is the same situation in other industries.

Within several modules of the Preliminary Specification there is the “Gap Filling Interface.” It enables users of the software, from the service and oil & gas industries, to publish areas where they sees gaps in the offerings being provided. This will open up communication and collaboration on the types of services and products that can be developed that are needed to fulfill those gaps. In addition with the software development capabilities of People, Ideas & Objects the software can be amended to deal with any change in the process to accommodate the gap filling process.

Spontaneous order brought us to this point. Unfortunately software systems have put a roadblock in its way. We now have to consciously workaround this roadblock and work to expand our economies deliberately and purposely. Our hypothesis suggests that today’s slow growth economy is severely constrained by the software and systems that are in use today. We need to fight to overcome these constraints. We also need to fight the bureaucracies who find comfort that their franchise is unchallenged by simply keeping the software intact.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

The Preliminary Specification Part VIII (PLM Part III)

In the past two posts regarding the Preliminary Specifications Output. We have noted two research projects for the community to undertake. The first research project relates to all three of the “marketplace” modules and is to determine if the user interface would incorporate elements of the “user vision”. The second research project relates to the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module and is to determine if the data and information is to be stored at the Joint Operating Committee level or at the producer. This would enable many changes, the most important of which was a revised division of labor and specialization in the administration of oil and gas.

The implications of the decisions from these research projects are far reaching. The entire Preliminary Specification is a substantial opportunity for the industry to participate in a significant redesign of how the industry operates. By realigning all of the frameworks of the hierarchy, those being the compliance and governance, with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee we are leaving no stone unturned. We have the opportunity to address everything and make it far more natural in how it operates.

The budget for the Preliminary Specification has taken on the controversial size of $100 million. We begin to see how that size matters in the type of work that needs to be done. These two research projects are only small subsets of the work that needs to be undertaken, but they are budgeted for. It is this type of research that will benefit the system as we move forward. These research decisions made at this early stage will have the dramatic impact on the system when it is developed. Change after the Preliminary Specification becomes difficult and very costly. Now is the time to address these difficult points, and now is the time to address them appropriately with the appropriate research budgets.

I don’t want to get into the details of what is required in each of the research projects. Once you start thinking it becomes quite a large issue. And that is why they will be addressed in the Preliminary 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.

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.

Copyright Notice

Politics, can’t live with it, can’t live with out it. This post is about the political realities around the use of copyright in the oil and gas industry. Specifically the copyright that I hold in the research around using the Joint Operating Committee. There are two key points that need to be considered, again, as there seems to be some belief in the marketplace that actions taken by industry members are not subject to the political or legal realities of copyright law.

First of all let me restate the copyright notice. Look at any and all blog posts and knols that contain any of my writings and you will see the copyright for these published works. These are all based on the original idea of using the Joint Operating Committee which originates in my September 2003 research proposal to industry. Now on with the politics.

Producers management and specifically the C class executives, will not wish to "break the (copyright) laws" by using any other software that does not comply with my copyright. This isn’t in a producers best interest due to the fact that it could be financially costly for them to proceed with the development, implementation or use of any other software that violates this copyright and therefore would be unusable. The financial costs of these activities, the time lost in implementing them and the potential loss of further time when the software would not be available for use could be severely detrimental to the producer firm. The software marketplace could be an organizational graveyard for the unaware or careless management.

The second area where intellectual property can be politically disruptive to a producer is when dealing with the hardware, software and services of major vendors like SAP, IBM and Oracle. They have no interest in diluting the legal value of their assets by belittling or diluting their assets by contaminating them with software that is not supported by associated research. That is to say they live and die by the value of copyright and have as much interest as I do in seeing that my copyright is upheld. It in fact supports their copyrights indirectly. They also have no interest in contaminating their IP with IP that may be in direct breach of someone else’s IP, and therefore indirectly becoming party to a breach. It was with this in mind that I informed these firms of my copyright, based on the Preliminary Research Report, in an email dated October 15, 2004 and cc’d to many of the CEO’s of the major Canadian producers.

On a related point. Oracle recently was awarded $1.3 billion in litigation with SAP for their breach of Oracle’s IP. Two very clear points are noted as a result of this. As I noted in the previous paragraph, no software vendor will violate another vendors legitimate claim. And secondly, this is now being extended so that customers don't want to be party to illegitimate use or violation of others IP.

Customers of People, Ideas & Objects can rest assured that the clarity and pristine nature of our IP is impeccable. The value of the idea of using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct is immense, and the development of that idea is evident and available for anyone to review through this blog and the referenced knols. There are over 800,000 words, 6 good sized text books, that support the work that has been done and that is reflected in the Draft Specification. This effort has been undertaken to ensure People, Ideas & Objects customers of our ability to compete in this marketplace.

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.

Where we are at, Phase-Two Begins

The sabbatical is over and its time to get back to work. It’s been a restful and worthwhile break to recharge the batteries to make the crucial transition from phase one of the project to begin the second phase. It’s therefore best to start off with a quick summary of where we are at in terms of how we left things before the sabbatical.

Most importantly is the Draft Specification which was published in July 2008 and forms the basis or foundation of the second phase of our software developments, the Preliminary Specification. This eleven module system description defines what a producer firms systems would look like when we use the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. It is radically different and provides an overall vision of how producers would manage their assets in the most profitable manner. The Draft Specification is available for review on two pages located here.

From the period of time between August 2008 to May of 2010 we undertook a detailed discussion of how and what the Draft Specifications impact would have on an oil and gas concern. Taking issues and opportunities of the day and applying them to the specification. Providing real life testing and understanding of these ideas. We also had the opportunity to take McKinsey’s and others research and apply it to further broaden the overall understanding of the Draft Specification. These blog posts can be sourced through the archive during the period noted, or through the McKinsey label.

Although we continue to promote the Draft Specification from time to time we began to move the project forward with some specific deliverables in 2010. During the period June - August 2010 we developed the Phase Two proposal that forms the framework of the second phase of the work that is now ahead of us. These blog posts can be aggregated by selecting the Phase-Two label in the blog. One important difference between what is stated in that period and now is that I will be clearer on the budget requirements of the Preliminary Specification. So stay tuned for that.

Lastly during the time frame of August 2010 to January 2011, or the beginning of our sabbatical, we reviewed the key points in the Preliminary Research report. Our special emphasis was on Professor Giovanni Dosi’s paper “Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation”. These blog posts can be aggregated by selecting the “Review” or “Dosi” label. I highly recommend reviewing this work thoroughly. Professor Dosi’s work is very pertinent and applicable to using the Joint Operating Committee in the manner that the Draft Specification suggests. In fact the Draft Specification is designed using the research of Dosi’s and many others research and therefore makes the understanding of his work critical.

It is on that note that we say so long to the heavy emphasis on research. I expect that the primary focus on research will fade from this blogs pages. We are moving to a commercial forum and one that focuses on building software. Research has provided us with a broad base of understanding and a foundation of almost 800,000 words of how the Joint Operating Committee builds real value for the innovative oil and gas producer. Now we turn to a new a focus that builds on that foundation. We are now focused on building the software that makes that value real. Value that recognizes that it its not just ownership of the oil and gas assets; but also access to the most innovative software to provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operation.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part XVII, a Conclusion

Our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” has provided us with the evidence that the Joint Operating Committee is the “innovation” framework for all oil and gas producers. Identifying the “innovation” framework as part of the Joint Operating Committee along with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication and strategic frameworks. People, Ideas & Objects Draft and Preliminary Specifications identify and support the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. We provide this by moving the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy into alignment with the seven frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. Enabling a greater speed, accountability and innovativeness of the producer.

It is now time for producers to act. Review of our Revenue Model will inform producers how they can participate in the development of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. Producers can contact me here for further information, or to begin the process of their participation.

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part XVI

With this post we have completed the review of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation”. After this post I will have some closing comments and a review of the papers highlights in future posts.

Characteristics of Innovation and Patterns of Industrial Change.

Professor Dosi states that the rate of change and observed dynamics of industrial performance can be attributed to the following components:

Innovative learning by single firms augmented by universities and government agencies. 

People, Ideas & Objects asks: what would be the effect of increasing the exposure from a single firm, to a collaboration between several firms through the Joint Operating Committee? Would this facilitate a marked increase in Joint Operating Committee knowledge? And would this knowledge therefore facilitate an increased rate of collaborations leading to an increased level of understanding and pace of innovativeness and scientific knowledge? Or as Dosi notes:

The diffusion of innovation, the knowledge of innovative products and processes. 

Professor Dosi states that his general interpretative conjectures are: (And these are an important consideration in determining the capability and capacity to innovate.)

First, the empirical variety in the patterns of industrial change is explained by different combinations of selection, learning, and diffusion and different learning mechanisms. (p. 1159)

Second the nature of each technological paradigm, with its innovative opportunities, appropriability conditions and so on help to explain the observed inter-sectoral differences in the importance of the above three processes. (p. 1159)

Each successful innovation creates an asymmetry effect, or an overall increase in competitive position of the entire industry. However, that does not necessarily increase the competitiveness of all the participants of the industry. The ability of laggard companies to improve their competitive position helps to form new positions within their industries. These laggard companies generally are able to move further and quicker through their imitation of leading companies. However, the primary differentiating component of competition based on innovation in process and product is attributable to the innovative capability of the firm.  ie. a laggard will remain a laggard without the direct and active development of innovative appropriability conditions.

Professor Dosi finds these points difficult to quantify and prove, but states these may be tacitly understood. People, Ideas & Objects asserts that that was the case in 1988 at the time this article was written, however, the laggards ability to “keep up” or even “catch up” may have progressively diminished through the application of information technology during the 2000’s.

There is a determining paradox for the ability to innovate based on imitation or strict Research and Development. Companies can copy others innovations in industries with minimal asymmetry, (where they are all the same). Whereas industries that are asymmetric (like oil and gas) or have large variances in their capabilities are best served by differentiating themselves by pursuit of Research and Development.

One can see with the difficulty of this discussion; how and where innovation and research & development are done in oil and gas. The discussion to this point is ripe with conflict and contradictions, the raw material for solutions. In the Draft Specification’s eleven modules their are two specific modules that deal with these problems. One module is the Research & Capabilities Module which is the Firm based module, the other a Joint Operating Committee module called the Knowledge & Learning Module. Please review those as to how this division of labor is determined in the People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification.

It is now time for producers to act. Review of our Revenue Model will inform producers how they can participate in the development of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. Producers can contact me here for further information, or to begin the process of their participation.

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part XV

Returning to our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” in the Journal of Economic Literature Vol. XXVI (September 1988), pp. 1120 - 1171. Recall this review of Dosi was part of our overall review of the Preliminary Research report; of which we have been aggregating all of these review posts under this blogs label “Review”. I highly recommend reviewing Professor Dosi material in detail. His 1988 paper has become one of the critical resources in the area of innovation and our use of this document was instrumental in determining the Joint Operating Committee is the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer.

Innovation and Industrial Change: Learning and Selection

A. The Innovation Process and Industrial Structures

In this post Professor Dosi asserts that the makeup of industries and companies is attributable not only to the endogenous force of competition. Innovation and imitation also make up the fundamental structure of an industry. “Market structure and technological performance are endogenously generated by three underlying sets of determinants.”

Each of these three components is evident in the marketplace of an oil and gas producer today as reflected in:

• The structure of demand.

Satisfying the insatiable demand of the global energy marketplace is critical to the advancement of all societies. American and western societies as well as Chinese and developing societies face real challenges in sourcing adequate long term sources of energy. The long term demands on the energy producer have never been so great.

• The nature and strength of opportunities for technological advancement.

The nature and opportunities for technological advancement lead one to believe mankind has never faced the level of opportunity and acceleration that is possible today. The industrial mechanization of the past 100 years combined with the prospective mechanization of intellectual pursuits combine to markedly appreciate the value of human life. The availability of energy will be a critical element of this advancement.

• The ability of firms to appropriate the returns from private investment in research and development.

The oil and gas industry is moving closer to its earth science and engineering principles. Innovation, research and development in both the producer firm and the market are and will become more commercial in nature. It is on the basis of success or failure of these factors that will determine the success or failure of the firm within the industry.

Focusing these three components through the Joint Operating Committee is what People, Ideas & Objects provides through the Draft Specification. By simply moving the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy over into alignment with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication and innovation frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. Provides the producer with greater speed, innovativeness and accountability.  But it also enables the producer to focus on innovation, research and development.

It is now time for producers to act. Review of our Revenue Model will inform producers how they can participate in the development of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. Producers can contact me here for further information, or to begin the process of their participation.

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part XIV

As technical paradigms are introduced companies accept and use these innovative capabilities at different rates. This rate of acceptance can be classified as early innovators, imitators and fence sitters. Thus a satisfactory understanding of the relationship between innovation and distribution of firms structural and performance characteristics also implies an analysis of the learning and competitive process through which an industry changes.

We have also seen over the past twenty years an interesting trend that has created significant differences in the stratification of the oil and gas industry in terms of the size of the producer and their associated innovativeness. The small organization was able to purchase reserves and facilities from the open market, or their previous owners, only to substantially increase the inherent value through increased production and / or performance. We can conclude that the bureaucracy inherent in the hierarchy had stifled the innovativeness in the larger organizations and most disturbing is the lack of concern or identification of this as an issue over the past number of decades.

Professor Dosi notes;

Finally, empirical studies often show the coexistence, within the same industry and for identical environmental incentives, of widely different strategies related to innovation, pricing, R & D, investment and so on. Specifically with regard to innovation one notices a range of strategies concerning whether or not to undertake R & D; being an inventor or an early imitator, or “wait and see”; the amount of investment in R & D; the choice between “incremental; and risky projects, and so on (see Charles Carter and Bruce Williams 1957; Freeman 1982 and the bibliography cited therein). Call these differences behavioral diversity. p. 1157

Changing the innovative behaviour of one producer carries a scope of change that is as broad and as diverse as is contemplated in the business world. Change at this scale in many instances can not be managed within the organization but needs to be managed through the forces of creative destruction in the greater economy. A time of dynamic change driven by the organizational changes focused around the innovative Joint Operating Committee.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part XIII

Professor Giovanni Dosi notes that most of the innovation occurring during the industrial revolution had been via the “technical trajectories of increasing mechanization of production and increasing exploitation of economies of scale.” However, these innovations have been on the basis of the "trade-offs between volume of production and flexibility of the production lines."

Robotics has had a tremendous impact on the makeup and mix of production runs and flexibility, the efficiency of small production runs, and the likely increase in the importance of plant related economies of scale.

Therefore it is concluded by Dosi that the increased flexibility afforded by robotics and automation, motivated primarily through the more speculative nature of demand prediction, has had the effect of decreasing the productivity effect of additional innovations. Ultimately, however, the expectation of the innovations effect is that it will move the costs lower over the smaller production volumes. We are now clearly seeing this in the innovation and diversity of offerings in the vehicle industry. (Greater costs being allocated over smaller production runs.)

In oil and gas we see what might be considered a parallel situation. The business cycle is more dependent on the reserve life of new reserves. With rapid three-year declines, specifically in gas, the question becomes: is this a product of the cumulative innovativeness in exploiting the technologies that have developed? Or, is the use and application of oil and gas technology yet to be tested against a more exploration style mindset consistent with the risk - reward of the current market pricing of the commodities.

Either way it appears that the exploration and exploitation of oil and gas reserves has and always will be a function of the technology based on the underlying sciences. This is undeniable, and may also be the cause of the shorter-term life cycle and diminished size of new reserves, which is agreed by most to be a trend that will continue. This reserve size and deliver-ability is paralleled in Dosi’s discussion of how innovations in industrial companies have been diluted by demand prediction and lower production volumes. Scientific and engineering innovations accelerating the extraction of oil and gas reserves and this trend continuing for the foreseeable future.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part XII

We return to our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s “Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation”. Earlier we noted that the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) is the ideal or key organizational construct for innovation. There an innovation framework operates in alignment with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. And if we moved the compliance and governance frameworks from the hierarchy into alignment with the six frameworks of the JOC, as People, Ideas & Objects suggests in the Draft Specification, we would achieve a greater speed, accountability and ‘innovativeness’ in the business of the oil and gas producer.

Professor Dosi discusses the phenomenon introduced earlier in our review when he asks, “are the observed inter-sectoral differences in innovative investment the outcome of different incentive structures, different opportunities, or both?”, and now considers the relationship between innovative activities and the dynamics of industrial structures and performance. Why do some companies attain greater value from Innovation?

Professor Dosi (1988) reference to the Schumpeterian hypothesis, “that bigness is relatively more conducive to innovation, that concentration and market power affect the propensity to innovate” and his rejection of that premise is evident in this paper’s following three points.

• First, although “there appears to be roughly a log linear relation within industries between firm size and R & D expenditures”, upon closer investigation, “estimates show roughly non-decreasing return of innovative process to firm size.” This is probably attributable to the fact that very large and very small firms conduct most R & D. p. 1151
• Second, although the expenditures in R & D incurred by large firms are impressive from a total expenditure perspective, the aggregate expenditures of small firms on a global basis becomes far greater in aggregate than the large business. p. 1151
• Third, money is not necessarily a good indicator of innovativeness. Large variances within industries can clearly be identified irrespective of firm size. p. 1152

Therefore “bigness” is not necessarily an element that enhances innovation. This might be intuitively understood by the small oil and gas producers ability to punch above their weight.

Dosi (1988) provides three caveats to the three differences noted.

• “Statistical proxies cannot capture aspects of technical change based on informal learning” p. 1152
• Secondly, “differences in businesses and business lines (and business or product life cycles) may provide discrepancies in comparison of “like” firms. p. 1152
• Thirdly, many firms are expending significant research dollars in keeping up with other firms innovations.  p. 1152

Or in summary, money is not necessarily a determinant of innovative success.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part XI

Our review of the Preliminary Research Report, Professor Dosi’s paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” and the Draft Specification is providing evidence to answer two of our research questions. I think it is becoming clear that innovation can be the result, as our first research question asks, of a quantifiable and replicable process. What also is becoming clear is the lack of the processes that facilitate innovation, will most certainly lead to a lack of innovation. That to leave the process of innovation to chance is irresponsible, reckless and bound to fail.

The second research question we are seeing the answer to; is the Joint Operating Committee is the optimal organizational construct to identify and support innovation. Building the systems that support the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks of the JOC is our focus. However, what I am realizing is that innovation is also a framework of the JOC. That is to say we should be stating that the Joint Operating Committee is the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication and innovation framework of all producers. As a result of this realization I have changed the header to this blog to reflect this change.

Continuing with our review of Professor Dosi’s paper, he begins by summarizing that businesses commit to innovation stemming from exogenous scientific factors and endogenously accumulated capabilities developed by their respective firms. His general point is that “observed sectoral patterns of technical change are the result of the interplay between various sorts of market-inducements, on the one hand, and opportunity and appropriability combinations, on the other”. p. 1141

What opportunities are and will be constrained by not adopting a more innovative organizational structure? If the geological and engineering sciences progress in a substantial manner in the next few years, how will oil and gas companies adopt, employ, test, and prove these science's development without an enhanced capacity to innovate? How much of the drive towards innovation is the beginning of the understanding necessary to expand the science? How much of an inducement are the current commodity prices providing the global competition to innovate? Until producers capture these “appropriabilities” within their ERP systems, such as the Draft Specification does, innovation will be left to chance.

I am not asserting that efforts in the past were not innovative or moved the science substantially. The issue People, Ideas & Objects is raising is that the pace and speed of the science’s development in the near to mid-term, and particularly the long term, will accelerate based on the fact that, globally, reserve replacement continues to be progressively more challenging, and the prices realized for the commodities have begun to reflect these challenges. Professor Dosi (1988) concludes this section with “Finally, the evolution of the economic environment in the longer term, is instrumental in the selection of new technological paradigms, and, thus in the long term selection of the fundamental directions and procedures of innovative search.” p. 1142

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

Technorati Tags: People's Dosi Research Innovation Review

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part X

In our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s paper, “Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation“ we now ask what are the incentives to invest in the discovery of innovations and there development? Will these depend on the incentives that interested and motivated agents perceive in terms of expected economic returns? Professor Dosi calls “appropriability those properties of technological knowledge and technical artifacts, of markets and the legal environment that permit innovations as rent yielding assets against competitor’s imitation”.

Professor Dosi (1988) notes a study conducted by Richard Levin et al 1984, in which they studied “the varying empirical significance of appropriability devices of (a) patents, (b) secrecy, (c) lead times, (d) costs and time required for duplication, (e) learning curve effects, (f) superior sales and service efforts.” Professor Dosi (1988) observed, “that lead times and learning cures are relatively more effective ways of protecting process innovations, and patents a more effective way to protect product innovations.” Dosi concludes. “Finally, there appears to be quite significant inter-industrial variance in the importance of the various ways of protecting innovations and in the overall degrees of appropriability”. (p. 1139)

Oil and gas producers are focused on process innovations, industry suppliers on product innovations. Recognizing this division of labor is how People, Ideas & Objects Resource Marketplace module provides and facilitates a greater interaction between producers and suppliers. Each group is concerned with securing their innovative capabilities without creating any conflict with the other. (The producer looking to lead times, learning curves while suppliers using patents to protect their innovations and capabilities.)

Levin states that the control of complementary technologies becomes a “rent-earning firm-specific asset”. Professor Dosi (1988) states “in general, it must be noticed that the partly tacit nature of innovative knowledge and its characteristics of partial private appropriability makes imitation a creative process, which involves search, which is not wholly distinct from the search for new development, and which is economically expensive - sometimes even more expensive then the original innovation, and applies to both patented and non-patented innovations.” (p. 1140)

With the fast changing science and technological paradigms and steep trajectories of the industry, the need to have the capability to innovate will be needed for each producer to develop on their own. If the costs of duplication are as steep as the costs of developing the internal capabilities, the producers should then rely on their process innovations to carry their firm. However, that also imputes that a greater level of co-dependency exists. Partners in the Joint Operating Committee will have resources available to commit to the projects and suppliers will have contributions as well. As the Resource Marketplace module seeks to eliminate the redundant and mutually exclusive capabilities being built within each silo’d corporation. The proposed alternative in the Draft Specification is to rely on the marketplace for development and deployment of these innovations.

To restate this another way. With the dual constraints of; the difficulty in increasing the volume of earth science and engineering resources in a material way, and secondly, the demand for greater volumes of science and engineering in each barrel of oil, the need for the producer to rely on the “market” (within the Resource Marketplace module) to define and support their innovative appropriability is a necessity. A means to effectively pool and manage the technical resources made available through the participants in the Joint Operating Committee and service industries, as contemplated in the Resource Marketplace module and Military Command & Control Metaphor.

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

Technorati Tags: People's Dosi Research Innovation Review

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part IX

And we’re back from a refreshing break. When we look at the decision to implement a new and innovative idea within an oil and gas property, we look to determine where the decision rights reside. In oil and gas the operational decision making authority resides with the Joint Operating Committee. Therefore to increase a firm or industries innovative-ness we have to move the technological and science based innovations closer to the decision making authority in order for them to be implemented. Whereas there may be a meeting of the minds on the course of actions to take, understandably this is also the area where the bureaucracy lurks. Time, or the pace of turnover of these processes, also becomes a critical issue.

In today’s post we will be continuing on with our look at technological paradigms and the effect they have on scientific and innovative trajectories in oil and gas. When discussing these points on innovation, it is important to remember that the sciences, the trajectories they are on, and the opportunities they generate for a producer, are accelerating and will continue to do so. Recognizing the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct, as is done in the Draft Specification, is the means to deal with these scientific paradigms and trajectories, and hence, an area where significant process automation can and will take place through the development of People, Ideas & Objects software applications.

With this process in mind, we note that Professor Dosi suggests two separate phenomenon are observed:

• First, new technological paradigms have continuously brought forward new opportunities for product development and productivity increases. p. 1138
• Secondly “A rather uniform, characteristic of the observed technological trajectories is their wide scope for mechanization, specialization and division of labor within and among plants and industries.” p. 1138

Both of these points are inherently understood. If we approach this process to deal with the administrative attributes within the People, Ideas & Objects application modules, we have an opportunity to release those “new opportunities for product development and productivity increases”. We however, also need to understand that the dynamics of these processes require constant “mechanization, specialization and division of labor” as has been contemplated in the software development capability that People, Ideas & Objects provides. Professor Dosi notes one of the benefits of this.

Similarly, new technological paradigms, directly and indirectly -- via their effects on “old” ones -- generally prevent the establishment of decreasing returns in the search process for innovations. p. 1138

Looking to model the management of this process across all producers within all geographical regions would seem to be a difficult task. However, Professor Dosi notes that there are other serious concerns that need to be taken into consideration.

The appearance of new paradigms is unevenly distributed across sectors and so are (a) the degrees of technical difficulties in advancing production efficiency and product performance, and (b) the technological competence to innovate, embodied in people and firms. pp. 1138 - 1139

Simply not everyone will be working off the same page when it comes to the types of innovation, the scale of their application and degree of complexity. In this next quotation it becomes clear that the process under management by the software is the means in which to be able to deal with these underlying paradigms and trajectories. Therefore, in order for the producers to begin the path of innovativeness requires that we resolve these process design issues, and build the software before they are implementable.

These distributions of opportunities and competence, in turn are not random, but depend on (a) the nature of the sectoral production activities, (b) their technological distance from the “revolutionary core” where new paradigms are originated, and (c) the knowledge base that underpins innovation in any one sector. p. 1139

People, Ideas & Objects believes that if we engineer a software application to deal with these issues, we can accelerate the performance of the producer and the industry. From a systems engineering point of view this has been beyond the scope of one software development team working with one producer. For any producer to undertake the required analysis, let alone development of the systems, is beyond the scope of what was possible or desirable. It is well beyond the scope of any software developer to undertake on their own, in a speculative manner, and therefore has been beyond the imaginations and possibilities of the industry. I would also argue that, in the past, automation of this business process would have generated limited value. Today we can define a more specific division of labor and specialization and therefore, provide a more profitable means of oil and gas operation.

To state this point differently, we can focus the resources of the industry on the comprehensive engineering of these processes. Allocating these costs over the entire energy producing base presents opportunities to undertake the detailed development of software that has not been attempted before. This is the approach that is necessary to deal with the issues associated with the producers meeting the market demands for energy. Management of these processes is the key to enabling the organizational performance, technological paradigms and trajectories that Professor Dosi notes in this paper.

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

Technorati Tags: People's Review Dosi Innovation Research

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part VIII

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: People's Review Dosi Innovation Research

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part VII

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

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

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: People's Review Dosi Innovation Research

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part VI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: People's Review Innovation Dosi Research

Professor Giovanni Dosi, Part V

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technorati Tags: People's Dosi Innovation Review Research