Professor Richard Langlois on Capabilities Part I

Introduction

There are two material processes that the Research & Capabilities module controls. The first is to divide the labor between research and development and the execution of those resulting capabilities. This process is separated into the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. The other material process is to move the knowledge to the area where the decision rights are held, the Joint Operating Committee. Professor Richard Langlois notes in the following.

The question then becomes: why are capabilities sometimes organized within firms, sometimes decentralized in markets, and sometimes coordinated by a myriad contractual and ownership arrangements like joint ventures, franchisees, and networks? Explicitly echoing Hayek, Jensen and Meckling (1992, p.251) who point out that economic organization must solve two different kinds of problems: "the rights assignment problem (determining who should exercise a decision right) and the control or agency problem (how to ensure that self-interested decision agents exercise their rights in a way that contributes to the organizational objective)." There are basically two ways to ensure such a "collocation" of knowledge and decision making: "One is by moving the knowledge to those with the decision rights; the other is by moving the decision rights to those with the knowledge." (Jensen and Meckling 1992 p. 253). p. 9

We should also point out the quote from Professor Carliss Baldwin of Harvard University. That “knowledge begets capability and capability begets action” and how this captures the objective of what it is we are after in the module. We need to remember to keep this focus in mind when we are working in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” That the data elements that we bring in to the interface are designed to initiate action.

During our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi we learned of technical trade-offs. And how these trade-offs facilitate the ability for industries to innovate on the changing technical and scientific paradigms. Crucial to the facilitation of these trade-offs is a fundamental component that spurs the change and is usually abundant and available at low costs. For innovation to occur in oil and gas, People, Ideas & Objects asserts that the ability to seek and find knowledge, and to collaborate are two “commodities” that are abundant today. With their inherent low direct costs, knowledge and collaboration are the triggers for a number of technical paradigms which will provide companies with fundamental innovations. There are many knowledge based and collaboration focused interfaces in the Preliminary Specification, making the People, Ideas & Objects ERP system the ideal candidate for the innovative oil and gas producer.

Lastly we should note that when markets such as oil and gas are asymmetric, research & development are the ways in which to differentiate capabilities and build an innovative oil and gas producer.

It was during the Preliminary Research Report that we determined two important elements that we should point out here in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. The first was the oil and gas industry was moving away from an easy energy era where producers were able to provide for bankable returns on investments. And moving to a much more difficult scientific basis of the business based on the earth science and engineering capabilities as one of the key determining competitive advantages. The other element that was determined in the Preliminary Research Report was that organizations are defined and supported by the software that they used. And we coined the phrase that “SAP is the bureaucracy” to reflect this fact. Therefore in order to change the organization it is necessary to change the software that defines the organization first. If we want an innovative and profitable oil and gas producer, then the first step is to set out in the software the elements of what that producer will look like.

Unique One-Off Derivative Organizations

It is in the Research & Capabilities module that we are defining and supporting the science basis of the oil and gas business. How the earth science and engineering capabilities of the firm are acquired and documented for subsequent deployment. It is with that in mind that we begin our review of Professor Richard Langlois paper “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization.”

However, a new approach to economic organization, here called "the capabilities approach," that places production centre stage in the explanation of economic organization, is now emerging. We discuss the sources of this approach and its relation to the mainstream economics of organization. p. 1

It is by way of a scenario that we note that a producer was able to document the internal and external components of the capabilities needed to conduct multi-lateral and multi-frac shale gas operations. Through a series of tests and trials they have been able to secure these processes to the point where the capabilities are deployed successfully to their various Joint Operating Committees. These processes documentation in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is subsequently populated to all of the shale gas zones of all the Joint Operating Committees they participate in and are available to be deployed at any time. The Joint Operating Committees know they can rely on a fully tested process based on their publication in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” By selecting the relevant capabilities in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” everyone from the engineers and geologists in the Joint Operating Committee to the lease hands on the drilling rig can see their role and responsibilities in making the operation a success. It is through the Knowledge & Learning “Planning & Deployment Interface” that the individual capabilities are accumulated and the program is designed to be executed.

One of our important goals here is to bring the capabilities view more centrally in the ken of economics. We offer it not as a finely honed theory but as a developing area of research whose potential remains relatively untapped. Moreover, we present the capabilities view not as an alternative to the transaction-cost approach but as complementary area of research p. 7.

What we had not discussed in the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning module is an important element of the “Planning & Deployment Interface,” the AFE. It will naturally be the AFE that is a large part of how the business and operational end of the deployment is initiated. Therefore the AFE template is part of the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” Having budgetary control of operations is attained through the AFE.

In sum, whether we see it from the perspective of the capabilities perspective or from the perspective of the modern economics of organization, there is an exciting theoretical frontier ahead. p. 31

For clarity the marketplace or service industry is the source of the capabilities, with operational coordination coming from the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee. If the business is a science, having everyone read from the same, unique in each instance, hymn book will not only be necessary, but will be the only way in which to be successful.

Seldom if ever have economists of organization considered that knowledge may be imperfect in the realm of production, and that institutional forms may play the role not (only) of constraining unproductive rent seeking behaviour but (also) of creating the possibilities for productive rent-seeking behaviour in the first place. To put it another way, economists have neglected the benefit side of alternative organizational structures; for reason of history and technique, they have allocated most of their resources to the cost side. p. 6

You have a unique, one time, temporary organization which is derivative of the Joint Operating Committee. It is necessary to make sure that that organization is able to understand everything that it is working to accomplish.

Operational Control and Coordination

We have noted how the information detailed in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module would provide the “knowledge, experience, and skills” of the operation. That these details were provided to all of the members of the temporary organization that was put together for the purpose of that specific operation. From the lease hands on the drilling rig to the engineers and geologists of the participating producers of the Joint Operating Committee. Everyone would be on the same page in terms of what and how the capabilities of the firms and market were being deployed. We now want to discuss these points further and relate how the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification enables the innovative producer to successfully complete these field operations.

[I]t seems to me that we cannot hope to construct an adequate theory of industrial organization and in particular to answer our question about the division of labour between firm and market, unless the elements of organization, knowledge, experience and skills are brought back to the foreground of our vision (Richardson 1972, p. 888).

Let us also bring in the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) that was developed by People, Ideas & Objects. The MCCM provides a means for these “pooled” technical resources within a Joint Operating Committee to immediately adopt a command and control structure that is recognizable. It is expected that this command and control structure would also extend over the field personnel from the field contractors that were hired for the operation being conducted. This would therefore provide a level of control to the engineers and geologists that would attain the precision necessary. Such that once the engineer gave the order to drill to a TD of a certain depth, then that would be achieved at exactly the point where the engineer expected it.

Here in the next quotation Professor Langlois raises an interesting point about “incentive alignment.” But in essence he is saying that at a certain point its not about a matter of incentives that motivates a team to succeed.

As we will argue in more detail below, there are in fact two principal theoretical avenues closed off by a conception of organization as the solution to a problem of incentive alignment. And both have to do with the question of production knowledge. One is the possibility that knowledge about how to produce is imperfect - or, as we would prefer to say, dispersed, bounded, sticky and idiosyncratic. The second is the possibility that knowledge about how to link together one person's (or organization's) productive knowledge with that of another is also imperfect. The first possibility leads us to the issue of capabilities or competencies; the second leads to the issue of qualitative coordination. p. 11

Reading of this next quotation shows that we have a job to do here in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module. That is we need to replace this critical function that was done by the “firm” in the previous organization. As much as we criticize the current management they are doing the job to a certain level. And to not respect that level would be a failure on our part. What we need to do is to capture what the firm does now by “lowering the costs of qualitative coordination in a world of uncertainty.”

A close reading of this passage suggests that Coase's explanation for the emergence of the firm is ultimately a coordination one: the firm is an institution that lowers the costs of qualitative coordination in a world of uncertainty. p. 11

Going back to the incentives issue for a moment. Lets put in context the conflict between the service industry and the oil and gas producers. They have been in disagreement for a number of years as to the pricing of the services for field operations. Read this next quotation with this in mind.

All recognize that knowledge is imperfect and that most economically interesting contracts are, as a consequence, incomplete. But most of the literature considers seriously as coordinating devices only contracts and the incentives they embody. It thus neglects the role- the potentially far more important role - of routines and capabilities as coordinating devices. Moreover, the assumption that production costs are distinct from transaction costs and that production costs can and should always be held constant obscures the way productive knowledge is generated and transmitted in the economy. p. 14

Professor Langlois is 100% correct. The producers are relying on contracts to incentivize the contractors and its not working. What is required is better coordination. And that begins with systems like the People, Ideas & Objects Research & Capabilities module that details the capabilities of the producers and field staff in a manner that constructively deals with the problems of a scientific based business.

What could only be described as a breakthrough, how we documented the Preliminary Specifications coordination of capabilities through the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module. This relieving of the incentives problem that contracting of the service industry is presenting to the oil and gas industry. As we learned, coordination will provide oil and gas producers with the control over field operations. Coordination through the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” provides the alternative means in which to ensure the science of the oil and gas business is effectively controlled as opposed to motivating the service industry through incentive clauses in the contracts. We will continue with this concept of the “incentive problem” and test it further with Professor Richard Langlois paper “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization.”

More generally, we are worried that conceptualizing all problems of economic organization as problems of aligning incentives not only misrepresents important phenomena but also hinders understanding other phenomena, such as the role of production costs in determining the boundaries of the firm. As we will argue, in fact, it may well pay off intellectually to pursue a research strategy that is essentially the flip-side of the coin, namely to assume that all incentive problems can be eliminated by assumption and concentrate on coordination (including communication) and production cost issues only.

It is through the producers documentation of the capabilities in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module that the “knowledge, experience and skills” are captured. From the engineers and geologists that are part of the Joint Operating Committee to those that are in the field, each should have an understanding of what is required of them from the capability that is listed in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” Recall that in the Knowledge & Learning module these capabilities are called like plays in the football analogy. Everyone on the team knowing what is happening and what their role and task is. That is what needs to be documented in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” for each of these roles, for each of the capabilities that are captured there.

In a world of tacit and distributed knowledge - that is, of differential capabilities - having the same blueprints [or software] as one's competitors is unlikely to translate into having the same costs of production. Generally, in such a world, firms will not confront the same production costs for the same type of productive activity. p. 18

And that becomes obvious when we consider that the capabilities that are available to each Joint Operating Committee, and the Military Command & Control Metaphor that is used, is going to be unique to each situation it is applied to. Using the same team to apply the same capability repeatedly should yield the same results. Therefore, if you were running a ten well drilling program then the consistency of the capabilities and the MCCM would provide the same precision and the same results.

This in turn, implies that the capabilities may be interpreted as a distinct theory of economic organization. p. 18

and

... while transaction cost consideration undoubtedly explain why firms come into existence, once most production is carried out within firms and most transactions are firm-firm transactions and not factor-factor transactions, the level of transaction costs will be greatly reduced and the dominant factor determining the institutional structure of production will in general no longer be transaction costs but the relative costs of different firms in organizing particular activities. p 19

This is inherently and simply true. The key to the successful implementation of any program is the level of documentation of the capability and the level of control during the operation. The “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” combined with the Military Command & Control Metaphor provide the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee with the means for successful operations. Recall that “knowledge begets capability and capability begets action.” And contrast this to the current situation where the producers throw more money at the service industry to incentivize them to succeed.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi on Innovation Part VI

We now soar with the eagles as we apply the overarching scope of the application of innovation to the oil and gas producer. Our discussion takes the summary of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s research and applies it to the oil and gas industry. To show the potential of what would be the effect of developing the People, Ideas & Objects ERP software.

Professor Giovanni 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 the following 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 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 producer firm within the industry.

By codifying the earth science and engineering capabilities within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” the producer begins the process of documenting what it is capable of achieving. By using the “Planning & Deployment Interface” either through the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning module, the producer will be able to deploy those capabilities at the right time and with the resources they have developed. We have drawn the analogy of a football team and how they design and communicate plays as to how these modules will work in the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specifications Research & Capabilities module.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi on Innovation Part V

When we consider what a producers capabilities would look like, such as those that are listed in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. Much would depend on the type of producer that is represented. As one could imagine a large firm such as Exxon would have a vast library of capabilities, and a small start up would be limited to a small database in terms of what they were able to achieve.

Some might assume that the majority of the innovation in the oil and gas industry is developed within the larger producers. However, I think that is generally considered to be untrue. The small and start up oil and gas firms along with the intermediate producers are probably responsible for the majority of the innovations in the last 20 - 30 years. Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 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 his 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. In the software development business, SAP does significant generic research in the software development arena. However, they do very little in terms of specific oil and gas research. On the other end of the scale People, Ideas & Objects have completed substantial oil and gas specific research and have commenced the development of oil and gas software with the publication of the Preliminary Specification. And I can assure you that at this time we are a very small firm, proving Professor Dosi’s first and third points.

If we look at Professor Dosi’s second and third points together. It is clear that money is not necessarily a determining factor in innovation. Although large firms spend impressively on R&D, that does not produce a number of usable innovations. And it may be the lack of financial resources that motivate the smaller firms to innovative problem solving on the other end.

Professor 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, proof that money is not necessarily a determinant of innovative success and that all producers need to be represented in an innovative oil and gas industry.

One element that we have not discussed in our review of the Research & Capabilities module is the factor of revenue per employee. We are using the factor in many of the interfaces, and I am only highlighting it here to show how the Research & Capabilities module influences the elements that make up the calculation of revenue per employee. Recall in the other modules that there are large variances in the factor between producers. These variances show that there is a large asymmetry between the producers. It is this asymmetry that is the topic of our discussion.

It was through the review of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” that we learned of the asymmetry effect. That 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 are generally able to move further quicker through their imitation of leading companies. However, the primary differentiating component of competition based on innovation 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 paper 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 on the basis of strict Research and Development. Companies can copy others innovations in industries with minimal asymmetry, (where competitors 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.

This is why the focus on capabilities is critical to the success of the oil and gas concern. They are able to differentiate themselves by research and development and focusing on capabilities. Passing these capabilities on to the Joint Operating Committee through the Knowledge & Learning module allows the producer to initiate these capabilities “just in time,” where and to who they are needed. This can be done without the concern that they are exposed or risked to potential competitors through the Joint Operating Committee. It should be clear through this analysis that those that would attempt to copy others capabilities will be expending extensive resources to do so, as much or even more then it would cost to develop the capabilities on their own. However, those that chose to copy will remain static within their competitive position within the industry. Its just not that easy to copy someone else, and it's not that valuable to their firm. When markets such as oil and gas are asymmetric, Research & Development are the ways in which to differentiate capabilities and build an innovative and profitable oil and gas producer.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi on Innovation Part IV

Research Into the Underlying Sciences

Our discussion of the Research & Capabilities “Research Budget Allocation Interface” offered the innovative oil and gas producer the opportunity to control the costs of the research and innovation conducted within their firm. We know from Professor Giovanni Dosi that businesses commit to innovation as a result of both the exogenous scientific factors and endogenous accumulated capabilities developed by their firms. We have discussed in fairly good detail how the capabilities are handled in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. I want to continue to discuss how the research end of the module is managed.

With the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” we are able to provide a global view of the capabilities that the firm have under development. As was mentioned, this interface will provide the user with the ability to see areas that might otherwise fall through the cracks. What is needed now is a similar interface that would give a view of the research that is being undertaken in the scientific arenas that enable the producer to “commit to innovation as a result of exogenous scientific factors.”

It might be important to quickly recall the major processes that are being managed in the Research & Capabilities module. We have the “Ideas Marketplace Blog” providing the environment where the service industry is actively developing new and innovative products and services with input from the producers. We have the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” where the firm is documenting what it is capable of and can achieve. These capabilities are deployed through the “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning modules and lastly we have the “Research Budget Allocation Interface.” There are more processes under management in the Research & Capabilities module, I only wanted to highlight the pertinent ones for the discussion that follows here on the scientific nature of the business.

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.

There is little doubt in my mind that we need an interface here. An interface that is similar to the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” would be appropriate. And maybe we only need to establish a second “page” within that interface. One for the internal or endogenous budget items and one for the exogenous budget items. The key here is to note that the greatest value is attained in the earlier stages.

Innovating on the Science

I want to continue on with our discussion of the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” and the two “pages” format. Recall that one page would be for the endogenous developed capabilities and the other for the exogenous scientific findings. What I want to discuss is the process that the user of this interface will be involved in in documenting the capabilities from the research that is being conducted within the firm and the greater scientific community. By way of the football analogy that we raised earlier, I want to show how this documentation would be done.

Ultimately the objective of the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” is to augment the firm's “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” or to enhance the firm's overall capabilities. The Dynamic Capabilities Interface documents what the firm is capable of. Then based on geological zones or other applicable criteria the user selects, the pertinent criteria are used to populate these capabilities to the appropriate similar Joint Operating Committees through the Knowledge & Learning module. The football analogy would come into play here in that the design of a play is committed to writing in which the team studies it, and each team member learns their role, and then executes the play in the manner in which it was designed.

As the firm continues, research from the endogenous and exogenous areas become innovations that populate the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” which in turn populate the various Joint Operating Committees. Professor Dosi (1988) continues 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) In the third paragraph of the previous section we documented that we have three processes that deal with these variables under management in the Research & Capabilities module.

Recently we also learned of the difficulty for a firm to copy another firm's ideas or capabilities provides little to no value. On the contrary the effort to copy anothers capabilities is as potentially difficult as building their own unique capabilities. We now learn that innovation is dependent on the technology that supports the firm. That is the technology both enables and / or constrains the innovations of the producer. Therefore copying capabilities, without a foundation or base of technology and capabilities to support what is being copied is useless. And if you have the base then copying would not be productive or motivating.

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 Preliminary Specification.

I now want to highlight the speed at which a producer firm is able to implement innovations. From the point in time of the research and discovery, to the actual implementation of the innovation there is little in terms of time or bureaucracy standing in the way of the proven innovation being implemented across the firm. When the time comes for people to use the latest approved and authorized processes in terms of what innovation they should use, there will be no ambiguity as to what is authorized in terms of the most recent approved capabilities to use.

To review the process; we have the firm conducting a variety of studies or research through Work Orders and AFE’s to enhance their capabilities. The day to day of these studies and research are monitored in the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” which also has a page that monitors the scientific communities research. When these studies and research are concluded and capabilities are enhanced they are added to the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module where they are populated with all of the information necessary to document and implement the capability. We have drawn a football analogy here to the playbook of a football team. A team member only needs to look at the playbook (the Planning & Deployment Interface) to determine what their role is during any play. The “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is sorted through a variety of different attributes with geological formation being one of them. In the Knowledge & Learning module any Joint Operating Committee that produces from xyz formation (or other attribute) will therefore have access to xyz capabilities in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.”

The key limiting determinant in terms of time is the amount of effort necessary to take the research or study from its raw form and turn it into a usable capability. The people within the Joint Operating Committee are doing two things. Making operational decisions and executing the operations. They are not field testing experiments as lab rats. It's important that this distinction be made and the proper documentation be handed off from the research and study to those that will execute it. As once the capability is documented, it will be immediately available to be executed the next time that the operation is conducted anywhere it is pertinent within the producer firms Joint Operating Committees. We will also have more to discuss on this point in the Knowledge & Learning module.

With this process in mind, we note that Professor Giovanni 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

This brings to mind that the Research & Capabilities module, with the complexity of processes as we detailed here. Would be deficient from the point of view of having any feedback from the Joint Operating Committees. Particularly from the first phenomenon noted above. Therefore we need to open a third “page” in the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” that is a window on the “Lessons Learned” from the Knowledge & Learning module. That way what is being learned on a day to day basis in the Joint Operating Committees can “bring forward new opportunities for product development and productivity increases.”

The individual user(s) of the Research Budget Allocation Interface of the Research & Capabilities module will be at the forefront of the innovation that occurs within the producer firm. Having windows on the research that is developing within the firm, within the scientific community, the lessons learned in the Joint Operating Committees, and lets not forget the “Ideas Marketplace Blog” and “Supplier Collaborative Interface” are not far away either. Providing a rich understanding of the state of affairs in the service industry. Theirs will be a rich medium of information of what is happening in the innovative oil and gas industry. The concern that many will have is that this information is then codified into further capabilities which are subsequently published through to the various relevant Joint Operating Committees. There they will have these capabilities available to the members of the JOC’s who will be able to see and use the capabilities, which will include participants of other producer firms.

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 curves 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 which Dosi observed “that lead times and learning curves are relatively more effective ways of protecting them.” Which brings up a very valid point. Assume that one of the capabilities that was published through the Knowledge & Learning module was the capability to fracture shale. Just because it is published doesn't mean that it can be copied. The “team” has practiced and built the capability from previous experience and “learning curves” and that is how the capability exists. Just because a football team sees the design of other teams plays does not mean that they will be able to implement the same play. They will have to work at building the right talent and practice to implement the capabilities necessary to execute the capability before they can successfully complete it. The same would be the situation for anyone observing another producers capabilities in a Joint Operating Committee.

Professor Dosi notes that Levin states that the control of complementary technologies becomes a “rent-earning firm-specific asset.” Dosi 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 than 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. What are the alternatives? Sitting on your advanced innovations and not using them, for fear that someone will copy them, in order to protect them?

However, this deployment of one's capabilities to the Joint Operating Committee also imputes that a greater level of co-dependency exists. Partners in the Joint Operating Committee will have other specialized resources available to commit to the projects, and suppliers will have contributions as well. As the Preliminary Specification seeks to eliminate the current overbuilt, redundant, unshared and unshareable capabilities being built within each siloed corporation. The proposed alternative in the Preliminary Specification is to rely on the advanced specialized contributions of the partnerships to bring about the most innovative solutions to the Joint Operating Committee.

When we are discussing the Research Budget Allocation Interface of the Research & Capabilities module it feels that we are at the heart of the innovative oil and gas producer. Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” has clearly identified the key factors that make a firm innovative. By instilling his work within the modules of the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification, the innovative oil and gas producer is able to have the quantifiable and replicable process of innovation within their domain. Something that I think is necessary for the difficult energy era that we find ourselves in today.

The vision that has been laid out in the Preliminary Specification provides a coherent way in which the producer would operate in this difficult energy era. These processes are to support the innovative oil and gas producer and are based on the research that has been conducted here at People, Ideas & Objects. What is also clear in the research is that the lack of the processes that identify and support the innovation will lead to no innovation at all. A producer that was originally constructed in the easy energy era. An era that was focused on cost control can not function in the innovative and difficult energy era that is here, or just around the corner. The difficulty in managing these oil and gas concerns, with conflicting constructs and demands will only intensify.

Recently I stated that the people who are operating in the Joint Operating Committee are not experimental lab rats. That to leave a capability that was untested and untried for them to sort out was counter to the purpose of the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface,” the Knowledge & Learning module and the Joint Operating Committee. They are there for execution and not for the purpose of developing concepts or experimenting. To use the football analogy the Joint Operating Committee is game day, and what the research and study area needs is a metaphorical practice field. One in which the opportunity to explore failure is welcome and where a producer can attain a learning experience to the ultimate solution or capability.

With that it sounds like it's time for another interface. And we’ll call this the “Experiments Interface” which will list the number of experiments and document the type and expected results of any and all experiments being conducted by the firm. This will be a comprehensive interface, much like the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” in that it will also have many similarities to a project management interface. This will provide the users with the ability to manage the project from start to finish in a manner that the capabilities are able to be developed as expected by the firm. These two interfaces will enable the users to control and manage the firm's development at the speed of the market and the science.

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. The bureaucracies are unable to handle the workload. Professor Dosi concludes 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

Therefore being in tune with the market and the science is the only safe place for the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi on Innovation Part III

Where and How Innovation is Implemented

In this section we want to reinforce the point that innovation will develop from the interactions and collaborations in the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” We noted that the people assigned to the project would discuss the project and raise any issues that they may have and innovation would stem from these interactions. This process that is captured in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” is how the Preliminary Specification reduces innovation to a defined and replicable process.

Professor Dosi notes that innovation is developed through the interactions between the “capabilities and stimuli” and “broader causes external to the individual industries such as the state of science.” These are captured in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” (capabilities and stimuli) and the Work Order system (state of science) of the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. As time passes the producer augments their capabilities with the findings from their research undertaken in the various Work Orders that are issued. Capabilities are then implemented in the day to day activities that the Joint Operating Committee is involved in. It is the interaction within the producer firm and JOC, and the broader causes that create the innovations.

We take the concept of a trajectory, define it, and apply it to oil and gas. The definition of a technological trajectory is the activity of technological process along the economic and technological trade offs defined by a paradigm. Dosi (1988) states “Trade-offs being defined as the compromise, and the technical capabilities that define horsepower, gross takeoff weight, cruise speed, wing load and cruise range in civilian and military aircraft.” People, Ideas & Objects assumes the technical trade-off in oil and gas is accurately reflected in the commodity pricing. Higher commodity prices finance enhanced innovation. These “trade-offs” are very much an engineering approach and therefore I want to reiterate the point that they are “defined as the compromise, and the technical capabilities.”

These trade-offs facilitate the ability for industries to innovate on the changing technical and scientific paradigms. Crucial to the facilitation of these trade-offs is a fundamental component that spurs the change and is usually abundant and available at low costs. For innovation to occur in oil and gas, People, Ideas & Objects would assert that the ability to seek and find knowledge, and to collaborate are two “commodities” that are abundant today. With their inherent low direct costs, knowledge and collaboration are the triggers for a number of technical paradigms which will provide companies with fundamental innovations.

Therefore the ability to collaborate in the “Planning & Deployment Interface,” and elsewhere, of the Research & Capabilities module is critical to the innovativeness of the producer firm. And by extension, this would also apply to the Joint Operating Committee through the “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Knowledge & Learning module. Innovation is as much an engineering discipline as it is anything else. That is how we can reduce it to a defined and replicable process.

Every organization has to deal with the two distinct and differing types of work that need to be done. Simply the two types of work are the need to execute and the need to develop the firm's capabilities for the future. These two roles have been separated in the Preliminary Specification with the Knowledge & Learning module, or Joint Operating Committee, concerning itself with execution. And the Research & Capabilities module, or producer firm concerned with developing its capabilities. This division of labor and specialization regarding these two types of work is the topic of this discussion.

We have noted that innovation was in many ways an engineering approach to problem identification and resolution. We however want to focus these innovation efforts in one area of the firm. Making sure that they are concentrated where they are most useful and the least harmful. And that is in the “Dynamic & Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module. It is at that location that the focus can be on innovation without the impact affecting the day to day operations of the Joint Operating Committees. Only when an innovation is proven to be worthwhile should it be written up as a new capability in the Dynamic Capabilities Interface, and therefore available to be populated into the Knowledge & Learning module for use in the day to day of the Joint Operating Committees. Professor Giovanni Dosi notes;

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

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 to test the theory, the failure may ultimately lead to and may be one of the keys to discovery.

By containing the innovation within the producer firm in the manner that the Research & Capabilities “Planning & Deployment Interface” does. Limits the contamination that might occur if innovation were attempted in the areas where execution is expected. This division of labor is necessary between the oil and gas firm and the Joint Operating Committee. As well, we know there are two types of people, those who are able to function best in either of these two environments. Any time these people are asked to operate in the environment that they are not oriented to, they feel uncomfortable and perform poorly.

This maybe shows a contradiction in the People, Ideas & Objects software. We assert that the software aligns the Joint Operating Committees legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, strategic and innovation frameworks. This claim that the innovation framework is part of the Joint Operating Committee is consistent with the fact that once the producer has proven the innovation is valid, then the Joint Operating Committee is the means in which it is implemented and executed throughout the producer firm through the “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Knowledge & Learning module.

Uncertainty and Risk in Innovation

Continuing on with our innovation review of the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. We note that the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” enabled the innovative oil and gas producer to isolate the innovation activities within one area in their firm. This enabled the various Joint Operating Committees to focus on execution of what was known, which of course included what was proven new and innovative. We now want to talk about the uncertainty and risk associated with innovative search. Something that I think that most producers are familiar with, however, something that will become more commonplace as the demand for innovation by the producer increases.

What is clear to me is the role that software will play in the enabling of innovation within the oil and gas firm. Throughout this discussion in the Preliminary Specification it is evident that software plays a critical role in the future oil and gas firm. Software is able to define and support the quantifiable and replicable processes of innovation. For the oil and gas industry to conduct any level of innovation without having the software, as defined here by People, Ideas & Objects, will be leaving the innovations outcome to chance. Such is the nature of software in the 21st century.

Whether it is geological or engineering in nature, the pursuit of these sciences bring to the oil and gas business certain elements of risk and uncertainty. Add to this the commercial nature of the oil and gas business and you have an atmosphere where innovation is for those who can take the heat. Professor Dosi suggest this is the appropriate environment for innovation.

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

Let's 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 scientific basis of the business and therefore are unable to support an innovative oil and gas industry. If the commodity prices are allocating the financial resources to fuel innovation. The industry will need to have the systems and procedures installed in order to manage the innovation. Systems such as what are described in the Preliminary Specification. With the low costs of knowledge and collaboration being the two commodities that affect the technological trajectories, having interfaces such as the “Planning & Deployment Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module will be a necessity.

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

We now turn to the research area of the Research & Capabilities module in the Preliminary Specification. What we are particularly interested in, is to take control of the financial costs of the innovative activities that are being conducted within the producer firm. A firm of any size would have a variety of projects being conducted. With the volume becoming unmanageable quite quickly if there was no control over the amount spent and the type of activity. There are cost controls that are set in place in the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification such as AFE’s and Work Orders, and these will control the research undertaken in the firm. The interface that we are talking about does not replace those, it only centralizes the information for a clearer understanding of the activity and its funding.

Your firm may become involved in many projects that seek to find new knowledge and capabilities regarding the oil and gas business. Some of these activities may be rather large and will certainly be the focus of the firm and will have no difficulty in attracting the attention of the firm. Some however may be small and will be important from the perspective that the capability is just as pertinent to the firm, but don’t attract the attention. Nonetheless, these capabilities needs to be included in the day to day of each and every operation of your firm, and as such needs to be documented in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” How does the firm manage the various projects within a firm to ensure that the money spent and all of the projects are documented within the capabilities of the firm?

Within the Research & Capabilities module we will have the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” that will assist in dealing with the costs of innovation and the volumes of projects the firm is involved in. If an AFE is raised with some element of the costs including the partnership doing some joint research or innovative activity, this activity should be populated in the “Research Budget Allocation Interface.” Or, if a Work Order is raised to conduct some study, that too will be populated into the “Research Budget Allocation Interface.” The purpose of this interface is to ensure that there is no duplication of the research undertaken, if there is then the costs could be saved. It is also to document the ongoing status of the project. And ensure that the results of the project are documented within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module.

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

Although this may appear like a simple interface, in the proper hands it would be a very powerful tool. It would provide a global view of the firms activities in the area of innovation and show the overall progress that the firm was making. It would also show where unrelated innovations might occur. Lastly it might show where some opportunities lay. 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.

The “Research Budget Allocation Interface” would provide a window on both the “different incentive structures and different opportunities within the producer firm. Making for a powerful tool in terms of guiding the innovative oil and gas producer.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi on Innovation Part II

Innovations Key Factors, A Scenario

I want to take a look at Professor Giovanni Dosi’s “key factors” of innovation in the context of the scenario that we used recently during our review of the Partnership Accounting module. Recall that we had a number of producers who were joining together through the Work Order system to participate in an engineering study. This Work Order system was discussed in the Partnership Accounting module to highlight the manner in which it eliminated the logistical accounting difficulties that impede the development of these working groups. I now want to discuss how the efforts of working groups are added to the capabilities of the producer and are managed in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification.

Upon completion of the working group the producer firm will have a unit of knowledge that has been developed from the efforts of the group. Professor Carliss Baldwin provides us with some clarity here with her “knowledge begets capabilities, and capabilities beget action” comment. What is needed is for the producer to have a central repository for all of the knowledge of the producer that is accumulated through the various working groups and other “key factors” in which they acquire knowledge. This will be called the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” in the Research & Capabilities module and will detail the source of the knowledge, the key factor, how it was acquired, and what it involves. This will be captured within a wiki style interface. This interface is also sorted by geological zone and other technical criteria, and will be populated to the Knowledge & Learning module for deployment to the appropriate Joint Operating Committees when required. Organizing a firms and Joint Operating Committees capabilities is the beginning of developing, deploying and effectively managing them.

Within any module of the People, Ideas & Objects application the user will be able to right click their mouse and select from a contextual menu of actions. These actions will include the ability to begin a Work Order, raise an AFE, prepare a Joint Venture Agreement etc. If the user can take action on the capabilities listed within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” then we have achieved the process that Professor Baldwin states is necessary. Having this information centralized for the producer, and the specific information for the Joint Operating Committee helps to concentrate the knowledge within one location within the firm. There will be little confusion as to where to find the answer to a specific question. When the user finds what they are looking for, the detail of the knowledge or capability should be specific enough as to define a process as to how it is successful implemented. Understanding that knowledge is never static, the ability to update the information with lessons learned would be part of the users responsibility. Recall updates from the Lessons Learned Interface is also done for the Joint Operating Committee in the Knowledge & Learning module.

The ability to annotate and reference the material within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” would make this more usable. In addition, with the tools that are available today, such as search, makes the information more valuable. What is truly valuable is the types of tools that will be available tomorrow. We are beginning to see some of these tools enter the consumer space with the iPhone’s SIRI virtual assistant. The first step however will be to acquire the knowledge and make it actionable through the ERP system of People, Ideas & Objects. Then we will be able to add these tools as they become available in the future.

If all that we were to do with the capabilities aspect of the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. Was to document the capabilities in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” then we would be wasting a lot of people’s time. The purpose in documenting the capabilities is so that we can deploy them, and that brings in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” which is the topic of discussion here.

Ideally I see the ability of a firm to deploy their capabilities as a key competitive advantage. The organization of that competitive advantage will be the focus of the management of the firm. It should also be noted that there is a similar “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Knowledge & Learning module for the Joint Operating Committee. The analogy that I would like to use and have developed in the Preliminary Specification is directly applicable to the game of American football. Where the coach can call in a play and the team is able to execute that play based on their known capabilities, roll and skills on the team. I want to draw a direct analogy for the person who plans and calls on the capabilities of the firm or Joint Operating Committee in the “Planning & Deployment Interface.”

First we need to bring in the Military Command & Control Metaphor and understand that the role of the individual, as designated in that structure becomes a critical part of the planning and deployment of the firm or JOC’s capabilities. There can be only one Quarter Back and you need many Down Lineman. Filling the various roles in order to take the actions that are needed is as important as the capabilities themselves. The Military Command & Control Module (MCCM) imposes a chain of command across the multiple producers represented in the JOC, or firm and enables them to operate the pooled resources of these firms.

The “Planning & Deployment Interface” will take the three critical aspects of the firm / JOC and arrange them within a web like interface for the user to develop the actions they desire. The three critical aspects are the people represented in the MCCM, the capabilities and the time frame. Having selected the personnel that you want to execute the action that you have in mind, their available time becomes known to the interface from each individual's calendar. Selecting the capabilities from the Research & Capabilities, or Knowledge & Learning, module is then drawn into the interface. From there the user is able to “process” the information and based on the variables given determine when the work would be able to be completed. Then they may select additional resources to fill deficiencies in areas where the capabilities suggest they need more resources, conduct more studies to determine certain unknowns or proceed with the project.

Upon proceeding with the project the people who were selected by the user in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” are given the job to do. They are provided with an understanding of what and how and who will be involved in completing the project. Not that it should be a simple matter of execution, but they should at this time have everything provided within the “package” they receive from the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” That package should be comprehensive and detailed such that it is all that they need to be able to focus on the successful completion of the task.

The quality of the documentation of the capabilities will be the determining factor in how successful the project will be. If the detail contained in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is of rich media, detailed and provides the user with a good understanding of what is required then the communication from what is expected and what is understood is not at variance. The people will be able to see clearly what it is that the project is about and how they are expected to complete the task.

The innovative and capable oil and gas producer is in need of the ability to document and deploy their capabilities in an efficient and effective manner. Here is a way in which the deployment is planned and executed with an understanding or “meeting of the minds” based on the quality of the documentation in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” It being not just a repository of data that might be used someday by someone. But a living source of quality capabilities in which the producer or JOC depends on to make sure that the execution of their projects are successful.

Who ever it is that implements the project through the “Planning & Deployment Interface” will be selecting the various capabilities documents from the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” When they do this they will be able to ensure that the capabilities they select reflect the “final” status necessary for the project. If there is further documentation that needs to take place or more work is needed to advance the state of the capabilities that are selected, these attributes can be added. This would have the effect of keeping the documentation up to the state of the capability within the firm or the Joint Operating Committee. Recipients of the information, once the “Planning & Deployment Interface” was processed, would be able to compare the capabilities information they received with the previous version they viewed, and determine quickly how the capability has changed from that previous version. This could be done by way of differing colored text or some other means. Then they could assess what impact and consideration that change would have on their portion of the task and if they were to have any issues as a result.

Just as with the selection of the various capabilities the resource selection would have any updated information regarding the capabilities of each individual. If the completion of a course or program, the successful implementation of other capabilities etc would be available to the user who initiates the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” This information could be incredibly detailed and include the contributions that the individual made to the “Lessons Learned Interface” in both the Knowledge & Learning, and Research & Capabilities modules. Their performance reviews from previous tasks and any comments about the role they undertook in previous assignments. This information should be available for in-house staff, resources that are pooled through the various Joint Operating Committees that a firm participates with, any suppliers and vendors or contractors that the firm or JOC may have hired to work on the task.

The timing of the project and its completion are somewhat flexible based on the number of resources that are put on the project. This makes for a bit of a paradox, as if the team gets too large you lose the cohesiveness that the team needs to rely upon. Understanding that the people that are resourced into these tasks are probably assigned to multiple projects, and their participation is somewhat constrained by these limits, the time line may reach beyond what is initially the target.

Lastly the “Planning & Deployment Interface” has been about the known knowns to this point. There are a variety of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. To document these, if possible, is the role of the team members once the project interface has been processed and assigned. Recall that Professor Dosi states “In very general terms, technological innovation involves or is the solution to problems.” Dosi goes on to further define this as “In other words, an innovative solution to a certain problem involves “discovery” (of the problem) and “creation” since no general algorithm can be derived from the information about the problems. Solutions to technological problems involve the use of information derived from experience and formal knowledge. It is the specific and un-codified capabilities, or tacit-ness” as Professor Dosi describes “on the part of the inventors who discover the creative solution.” A section of the interface should be set aside where the team can collaborate on these points and provide some innovative solutions for the producer or JOC.

It is therefore asked specifically, how can the knowledge, information and capability of oil and gas firms solve the technical and scientific problems of the future? How can a firm more effectively employ its capability to solve problems and facilitate the discovery of new problems and creation of their solutions? I think the development of the “Planning & Deployment Interface” as described here would provide the producer and Joint Operating Committee with these sought after abilities.

Focusing on the Producers Earth Science and Engineering Capabilities

People, Ideas & Objects software application modules enable the producer firms and Joint Operating Committees to focus on their core competitive advantages. These being the land & asset base, and the earth science and engineering capabilities of the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer. The Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification is the key module for the innovative producer to focus on their earth science and engineering competitive advantages. We have been discussing the “Planning & Deployment Interface” of the module and now we want to discuss how the producer maintains the pace of change in the underlying sciences and technologies.

The simple answer to this question is that the producer and particularly the Joint Operating Committee will not have the distraction of the long term acquisition of scientific and engineering research and capabilities development affect the day to day implementation of the knowledge of the firm or Joint Operating Committee. Recall at the beginning of this modules review we defined the time horizons for the Research & Capabilities module, and the Knowledge & Learning module, as the long term and short term respectively. The Research & Capabilities is about the acquisition of capabilities and their documentation, and the Knowledge & Learning is about their deployment, implementation and execution. The fact that there is a “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Research & Capabilities module may lead to some confusion, however, it is there as there are times in which the producer firm needs to implement the capabilities that it has for experimentation and its sole benefit.

This separation of the time horizon for the Research & Capabilities to take the long term perspective, provides the appropriate mindset for the producer firm to focus on the overall development of the earth science and engineering disciplines. The ability of the producer to match the pace of change in the underlying sciences and mapping the necessary changes within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” will communicate the changes from the organization to the various Joint Operating Committees that need that information on those capabilities. These changes and the communication of the changes to the appropriate people in a timely fashion will provide a means of increased performance for the producer and JOC. Providing a foundation for the producer to further build and implement their competitive advantages of earth science and engineering capabilities.

Restating for clarity purposes. That is how the Research & Capabilities module enables the producers to develop, implement and integrate advanced capabilities within their organization. The research undertaken by the firm should not interrupt the day to day of the operation. However, when the research augments the firms capabilities the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is updated with that knowledge. These capabilities as they are listed in the“Dynamic Capabilities Interface” will be available to be selected on related criteria in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” of the Knowledge & Learning module. If the research conducted by the firm is unresolved or undetermined in its conclusion then it would not belong in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” If it remained unresolved or undetermined then it would indicate that further work was required and therefore remain open in a Work Order for completion or resolution.

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.

Professor Giovanni Dosi On Innovation Part I

Introduction

It is through Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” that we will view the Research & Capabilities module. A couple of things that jump out at me in the module are the division of labor between computers and humans. Formulating ideas, making decisions and collaborating are the activities that are captured in this module. Leaving the mundane transaction and data management tasks to the computers. This I think an appropriate division of labor, and I wonder at times what SAP’s thinking is on this. There is also a strong division of labor and specialization in the technical resources of the producer firm. This is done to mitigate the resource shortfalls in the mid to long term. Another aspect is Professor Richard Langlois comment that we are “moving the knowledge to those with the decision rights” as being the primary process that the module captures. And lastly, that a user can right click at any time within the module and initiate any standard ERP type of action on anything in the module. This being an extension of Professor Carliss Baldwin’s research that notes “knowledge begets capabilities and capabilities beget actions.”

To the topic of innovation, Professor Giovanni Dosi’s paper discusses the role of innovation in the market economy and assumes companies in a free market are willing to invest in science and technologies to advance the competitive nature of their product offering or internal processes. The investment in science and technologies is with the implicit expectation of a return on these investments, but also, to provide the firm with additional structural competitive advantages by moving their products costs and / or capabilities beyond that of the competition. Professor Dosi note:

Thus, I shall discuss the sources of innovation opportunities, the role of markets in allocating resources to the exploration of these opportunities and in determining the rates and directions of technological advances, the characteristics of the processes of innovative search, and the nature of the incentives driving private agents to commit themselves to innovation.

We discussed that the Accounting Voucher would enable the producer to charge the various joint accounts with the costs of their technical resources with the implicit assumption that they would generate a return on the investment in the firm's capabilities. We also discussed the differences between what is acceptable practice today (with overhead allowances) and the different positions that some might take on the topic. However, I think Professor Dosi’s point here has to be taken as the key criteria as to the direction the industry takes on the issue. You are “investing to provide the firm with additional structural competitive advantages by moving their products costs and / or capabilities beyond that of the competitions.” The ability to sustain the state of the art oil and gas capabilities on the basis of what a producer earns from oil and gas production is a direct result of those capabilities, however, shouldn’t those capabilities also earn a return on investment above and beyond what the oil and gas production provides?

It’s only reasonable that the producer firm is going to approach the operation of some technically difficult task with the appropriate capabilities. Innovation requires that the capabilities of the producer be the base on which the innovations can be leveraged. What Professor Dosi has defined in his research is the key factors that innovation requires. We will discuss these key factors and how they are integrated within the Research & Capabilities and other modules of the Preliminary Specification.

One housekeeping duty is to note that there is a “Capabilities & Commitments” interface in the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module. This documents the contractual obligations that the producer is required to meet in terms of commitments to the various Joint Operating Committees that the producer is a participant in. And to leverage the working interest partners capabilities that are likewise legally committed. This interface is placed in the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module to document the legal obligations that are contractually defined. This interface should also be populated in the Research & Capabilities module.

Innovations Three Key Factors

We will now deal with the first of the three key factors of innovation, Professor Dosi notes:

The search, development and adoption of new processes and products in market economies are the outcome of the interaction between:

Capabilities and stimuli generated with each firm and within the industry of which they complete.

What you are capable of is wholly dependent on what has been purposely developed within your firm. These capabilities have developed over time and are able to be deployed repeatedly. As time passes further capabilities are developed and the firm becomes more capable through a variety of different means. The ability of the firm to develop these capabilities is limited by what the oil and gas service industry is capable of providing. If they have only x number of rigs available, then only so much work will be done. And if the rigs are only able to drill shallow wells then the science of the producer will be constrained by the capabilities of the service industry. Furthermore, if the producer is a state of the art earth science and engineering wonder in a sea of producers who are barely able to successfully drill shallow wells, then the state of the art producer is reduced to the same level of the others. The marketplace of the producers in terms of their technical resources and their capabilities have an enabling and constraining limit on what the producer is capable of. Innovation is leveraged from this base.

The question therefore becomes how do we broaden the base of not only the producer but the service and oil & gas industries? Recall how the Research & Capabilities module has an "Ideas Marketplace" blog like interface where members of both of the industries can post ideas of products and services that might be of interest to the producer firms. Producers may then act to support these ideas with funding and support to develop the idea into a product or service to augment their capabilities. Recall the "Supplier Collaborative Interface" in the Resource Marketplace module that enables the industry as a whole to benefit from the lessons learned by each producer. The "Gap Filling interface" where the producer can anonymously publish where they see gaps in the service industries offerings. Enabling the service providers to prepare new products and services based on a further defined division of labor and specialization. Or how the information within the Research & Capabilities interface is organized on the basis of geological zone, or other criteria, so that only those pertinent zones are populated to the individual Joint Operating Committees through the Knowledge & Learning module.

Recently in the Partnership Accounting module we discussed the accounting attributes of the Work Order system in forming working groups amongst industry participants. These could be informal working groups formed to study some geological or engineering situation among interested producers. The ability to strike these groups, participate in them and develop further capabilities as a result of these studies is a critical aspect of how the producers will develop their capabilities and innovativeness. Since the costs and the results are shared the industry as a whole advances. Leaving the producer open to further potential innovations. I see this as an area that will increase in terms of activity, if, the accounting logistics and bureaucratic nightmare that they create can be dealt with in the manner that the Partnership Accounting modules Work Order does.

The second key factor that Professor Giovanni Dosi defines as necessary is as follows.

The search, development and adoption of new processes and products in market economies are the outcome of the interaction between:

Broader causes external to the individual industries, such as the state of science in different branches, the facilities for the communication of knowledge, the supply of technical capabilities, skills, engineers etc.

Again these only make sense in terms of being critical to enabling the capabilities and innovations of the producer firm. The question becomes is how does the Research & Capabilities module and the Preliminary Specification specifically deal with these key factors to enhance innovation?

The first key factor that I want to address is the “supply of technical capabilities, skills, engineers etc.” That raising the quantity and quality of the earth science and engineering technical resources of the industry is possibly one of the three top issues of the industry. How does the Research & Capabilities module specifically increase the supply of these resources? As we have stated here many times the need to rely on the standard economic tools of an enhanced division of labor and specialization are the keys to solving this problem.

The issue is that these technical resources are limited in their supply for the foreseeable future. Through retirement and new recruits the population of earth science and engineering resources are somewhat constrained. Add to that the volume of earth science and engineering effort in each barrel of oil is increasing as time passes. Using specialization and the division of labor we can achieve a higher throughput from the same resource base. That is the basis of the solution used in the Preliminary Specifications Research & Capabilities module.

If we look at the way the industry is structured today, with each producer building the capabilities needed to address every possible contingency within their organization. The overbuilding of earth science and engineering capabilities is the result and this internal surplus capacity is left unused and unusable. Each producer pursuing the same strategy leaves a large surplus capacity that is unused and unusable on an industry wide basis. The pooling concept that People, Ideas & Objects has developed within the Preliminary Specification. Where producers of a Joint Operating Committee are able to pool their technical resources to meet the properties demands. Eliminates the overbuilding of capacities in each of the producer firms, and enables the producers to deploy the formerly unused and unusable surplus capacity.

Each producer will also need to specialize in some area of the earth science and engineering disciplines. The need to cover off the global scope of technical requirements is an extensive undertaking today. The future will require further specialization and division of labor be undertaken in the technical disciplines. Without choosing to specialize and using the pooling concept, the producer firm will be faced with such an onerous task of attempting to cover the global scope of these technical requirements as to be unprofitable. The “pooling” approach we are taking here in the Research & Capabilities module is of necessity.

That’s the first element of the division of labor and specialization that is inherent in the Preliminary Specification. The second element deals directly with the ability to organize the technical resources in a manner that deals with how the “bread and butter” geology and engineering is done in the industry. With a dedicated software development capability such as that which is People, Ideas & Objects competitive offering, the ability to organize new service based offerings to meet the demands of the industry's bread and butter earth science and engineering demands would now be possible. The expansion of the division of labor and specialization will therefore increase the throughput of the industry from the same volume of resources, and also enhance the quality of the resources. As we have stated many times at People, Ideas & Objects, software will define and support this future division of labor and specialization.

Regarding the “facilities for the communication of knowledge” as a key factor of innovation. The Research & Capabilities and the Knowledge & Learning modules are collaborative information systems that are “industry-wide” in their implementation. A review of the many interfaces that are mentioned here showed that the development and sharing of knowledge, which are critical for the development of the individual producers capabilities and innovativeness, are systemic throughout this module.

Lastly we need to develop an interface in the Research & Capabilities module that allows the producer to interact with the academic and research areas of the earth science and engineering disciplines.

We now want to document the last of the key factors that Professor Giovanni Dosi states are necessary to support innovation. And then begin a discussion on these key factors and how they are implemented in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification.

The search, development and adoption of new processes and products in market economies are the outcome of the interaction between:

Additional issues include the conditions controlling occupational and geographical mobility and or consumer promptness / resistance to change, market conditions, financial facilities and capabilities and the criteria used to allocate funds. Microeconomic trends in the effects on changes in relative prices of inputs and outputs, including public policy. (regulation, tax codes, patent and trademark laws and public procurement.)

It's only logical that innovation will spring from advanced markets with labor mobility, legal protection and capital markets. It's one thing to have these facilities provided, its another to have them aligned within the organization. With People, Ideas & Objects we are aligning the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee with the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy. This alignment permits the producer firm and the Joint Operating Committee to attain greater speed, innovation, accountability and profitability as a result.

What these key factors reflect is that the innovative oil and gas producer must first of all be capable. Innovation leverages the capabilities of the service industry, the producer marketplace and the greater market makeup. For the producer to attain their highest level of capabilities is the objective of the Research & Capabilities module. Each producer will be able to attain their own specific level of capabilities, and that level will be dependent on these key factors. Not all producers are built the same. The ability therefore to achieve state of the art capabilities and highly innovative practices are not something that are at risk in terms of being “copied” by other producers. Therefore a producer's willingness to participate in the collaborative environment created in the Research & Capabilities module would not risk any proprietary competitive advantage. On the contrary, based on these key factors, non-participation would limit the competitive advantage.

This environment is the polar opposite of the manner in which the industry operates today. Certainly there are high levels of joint ventures in operation, however, those are designed to mitigate financial risk more than anything else. And I am not suggesting a different posture be taken in terms of the risk profile of the industry. Only that a more open collaborative earth science and engineering level of discussion and participation is necessary for the industry to move to the next level of performance. One that enables the key factors to interact with the highly aligned and innovative oil and gas producer. And to begin the move to that next level of performance which requires that we build the software that defines and supports the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer, the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification.

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.