Pemex makes the change.

The market for People, Ideas & Objects software application is the oil and gas industry in general. This includes the International Oil Companies (IOC's), National Oil Companies (NOC's), Independents and start-ups. All of which of course use the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) as the means to deal with their partners. All of these types of organizations have the same needs from the point of view of managing their oil and gas assets.

Each barrel of oil equivalent is on a steep upward curve in terms of the volume of science and engineering involved in bringing the products to market. It is this upward cost curve that challenges the bureaucracies to keep up. What they are finding is the pace of change and the demand for innovative thinking is beyond the capabilities of the hierarchical firm. This is the situation for most of the western based producers and service companies.

People, Ideas & Objects approach is particularly unique from the point of view providing the NOC's. Pemex, Saudi Aramco, Petronas and the China National Oil Company to name just a few. Traditionally they have been charged with developing the countries energy resources for the country itself. Whether that is for its internal consumption of energy, management of royalties and / or export. The challenge to them is similar to the IOC's and Independents in that the level of effort per barrel of oil equivalent continues to escalate.

Mexican firm Petroleos Mexicanos is now indicating they will change how they develop their energy resources. In the Oil and Gas Journal, an article documenting the change notes.

Mexico’s state-owned Petroleos Mexicanos and the Secretaria de Energia (Sener) are preparing risk contracts that will be offered to oil companies—international and domestic—in order accelerate the search for oil and gas, according to local media.

These risk contracts have been used with a multitude of other methods by the NOC's before. The one constant is the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) is the means to manage these contracts. Recall the JOC is the legal foundation of the oil and gas industry. This is on a systemic and global basis with IOC's, NOC's etc. Pemex establishes the following framework for these contracts;

Sener explains that it is urgent "to speed up the discovery of new oil fields and the incorporation of reserves, as well as increase Pemex's execution capacity, particularly through new contracting schemes so that specialized companies can support its activities."

Clearly indicating that the support they are looking for not only includes the producer firms but also the service companies. Pemex is one of a number of countries that are establishing this trend as a result of the new realities of the scientific developments of the oil and gas industry.

Evidence of this is reflected in the research of the Baker Institutes Energy Forum's Cases under the heading of "The Role of National Oil Companies in International Energy Markets". In particular I want to highlight the research that was completed on for Malaysia's Petronas NOC. Reading that document clearly reflects the conclusion resonates with the work being done by the People, Ideas & Objects community. It also resonates with Petronas' strategy, history and economic needs.

In 2005 a Vice President of Petronas speaking before the Asian Energy Forum presented the firms corporate strategy. He emphasized several elements including growth and maximizing returns for shareholders. Growth has brought the move towards a global strategy with the desire to be an overseas investor in upstream and downstream sectors as well as encouraging foreign investment in Malaysia, while maximizing shareholder profits; he also noted the company's efforts to benefit local needs through a long term program involving Malaysia, host countries and other firms.

He asserted that it is important for Petronas to work with credible partners for several reasons:

1. Risks mitigation
2. Access to market
3. Access to proprietary technology
4. Political strength
5. Government to government relationship p. 21

In my opinion this strategy is wholly consistent with both the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP) and People, Ideas & Objects. Why?, due to the activities and operations of Petronas and other NOC's, the IOC's, Independents and start up producers need to align their governance and compliance frameworks with the JOC's legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks. This alignment brings a transparency  between the participants that increases the accountability of all oil and gas operations for all concerned, irrespective of the individual strategies employed by each participant in the JOC. The current situation where the corporate compliance and governance frameworks are focused only on the individual corporation is inconsistent with the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communication frameworks and operations of the JOC of which they are party to.

By granting a concession, lease, risk contract or any other vehicle to establish these oil and gas operations, a JOC is created. It is therefore necessary that the systems and procedures of those participants to the JOC have the JOC identified, supported and implicit in the day to day and strategic operation.

Additionally, each NOC or government that is interested in optimizing their oil and gas operations, both from a royalty income stream or as an active explorer and producer, want to have their jurisdiction open and active with the remainder of the oil and gas industry. Having the capacity to operate on the same basis of the global oil and gas producers and suppliers provides synergies to all involved. Using a standard system, such as People, Ideas & Objects amongst all participants of the industry enables access to the resources of the service companies, producer firms and other groups that may be involved in the JOC and available through an application based on the Draft Specification.

This also works for Petronas and other NOC's from the point of view of their strategy of wanting to be involved in oil and gas operations on a global basis. They, with standard systems based on the JOC, can easily participate based on known methods and means of operation on a global basis.

This is not a case of nationalization, although nationalism was a factor in its original formation. It has been a generally solid and well-respected partner to both private and state entities around the world. While it has become involved in a wide range of agreements with other companies and states in which its equity percentages has varied, Petronas itself is 100% state owned. It has no present intention to privatize. p. 35

Involving NOC's in the future in this manner is also consistent with the activities of the Baker Institute with their governing objective.

The Baker Institute Energy Forum is a multifaceted center that promotes original, forward-looking discussion and research on the energy-related challenges facing our society in the 21st century.

This future needs to be backed up by a software development capability as provided by the Community of Independent Service Providers and People, Ideas & Objects application modules. Please join us here.

Technorati Tags: People's Market Organization Science Research Energy Firm

Nobel to Oliver Williamson

The Nobel Prize was awarded to Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson this morning. I can't think of anything that puts the People, Ideas & Objects community inline with the current thinking of the economic community. I am elated. I am not aware of the work of Elinor Ostrom and I will look into her work to see if it applies as directly as Professor Williamson's does. I have two blog posts on Oliver Williamson's work and the one paper I reviewed "Introduction to Transaction Cost Economics" which provided strong grounding for the Draft Specification. I also have 7 other papers of his sitting in the hopper waiting to be reviewed. I'll certainly bump these up in terms of priority as to when I will approach them.

Noteworthy among today's accolades are the following.

From CATO

Both Ostrom’s work on governance institutions and common-pool resources and Williamson’s work on governance institutions and the transactional boundary of the firm contribute meaningfully to our understanding of how individuals coordinate their plans and actions in decentralized, complex systems.

From The Wall Street Journal

“According to Williamson’s theory, large private corporations exist primarily because they are efficient. They are established because they make owners, workers, suppliers, and customers better off than they would be under alternative institutional arrangements. When corporations fail to deliver efficiency gains, their existence will be called in question,” according to information on the research released by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. “Large corporations may of course abuse their power. They may for instance participate in undesirable political lobbying and exhibit anti-competitive behavior. However, according to Williamson’s analysis, it is advisable to regulate such behavior directly rather than through policies that limit the size of corporations.”

and

Ostrom’s work also has something to say about regulation: “The main lesson is that common property is often managed on the basis of rules and procedures that have evolved over long periods of time. As a result they are more adequate and subtle than outsiders — both politicians and social scientists — have tended to realize. Beyond showing that self-governance can be feasible and successful, Ostrom also elucidates the key features of successful governance. One instance is that active participation of users in creating and enforcing rules appears to be essential. Rules that are imposed from the outside or unilaterally dictated by powerful insiders have less legitimacy and are more likely to be violated. Likewise, monitoring and enforcement work better when conducted by insiders than by outsiders. These principles are in stark contrast to the common view that monitoring and sanctioning are the responsibility of the state and should be conducted by public employees.”

From the Calgary Herald

"Since we have found that bureaucrats sometimes do not have the correct information while citizens and users of resources do, we hope it helps encourage a sense of capacity and power," the professor told a news conference via telephone.

and this quote that takes People, Ideas & Objects to the mainstream and away from the "fringe".

"Over the last three decades, these seminal contributions have advanced economic governance research from the fringe to the forefront of scientific attention," it said in a statement.

and

"Are there relationships between the Fed and the banking sector, on which it has such a significant influence, that haven't been thought through as fully as they might in organizational terms?" he asked.

Much of their theories were used to prove the Joint Operating Committee is the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. Specifically noting that the natural "boundary of firm and market" is best represented in the JOC being the market. I'm dissapointed that I was only able to review one of Williamson's papers. My favorie quote from his paper is as follows.

Ronald Coase's 1937 paper on "The Nature of the Firm"expressly confronted an embarrassing lapse: whereas the distributing of activity between firm and market had been taken as given by economists, the boundary of the firm should be derived from the application of economic reasoning to the make-or-buy decision. pp. 15 - 16

Please join me here in this worthwhile, and now "mainstream" project.

Technorati Tags: People's Williamson Firm Market Research Economics Call-to-Action

Professor James Hamilton on energy.

Professor James Hamilton writes the popular and often cited weblog www.econombrowser.com. (Click on the title to download this paper.) I have highlighted many of his writing in the left hand column of this blog, his writing is clear, comprehensive and based on fact. Through the Brookings Institute he has published a paper entitled "Causes and Consequences of the Oil Shock 2007 - 2008". The abstract to this paper reads;

This paper explores similarities and differences between the run-up of oil prices in 2007-08 and earlier oil price shocks, looking at what caused the price increase and what effects it had on the economy. Whereas historical oil price shocks were primarily caused by physical disruptions of supply, the price run-up of 2007-08 was caused by strong demand confronting stagnating world production. Although the causes were different, the consequences for the economy appear to have been very similar to those observed in earlier episodes, with significant effects on overall consumption spending and purchases of domestic automobiles in particular. In the absence of those declines, it is unlikely that we would have characterized the period 2007:Q4 to 2008:Q3 as one of economic recession for the U.S. The experience of 2007-08 should thus be added to the list of recessions to which oil prices appear to have made a material contribution.

I recommend people download and review the comprehensive nature of this paper. This is an individual who, with tenure at the University of San Diego, and an impressive global following has nothing to gain or lose by saying what is said. This is the first paper that I have seen that confirms the concern that all should have with respect to our energy demands.

We see the political leadership continue down the road to energy alternatives. I would expect these moves will be short lived as the reality of their stupidity begins to show. If they are truly concerned about the CO2 that oil and gas production and consumption produce. What will their move to electric cars with lead acid or lithium batteries recharged by electricity generated by coal do. A little rational thinking from alarmist politicians would show them the demise of the landfill and the far more polluting coal. 

The solution to these problems does not involve a car. To move away from internal combustion engines to electrical can never happen. The costs would be formidable. Transportation should have a priority on the oil and gas resources. People, should begin skipping the 9 to 5 commute, and keep short trips to the Segway. People, Ideas & Objects are a big part of how these problems can be approached.

A key finding of Professor Hamilton's includes:

The most important principle for understanding short-run changes in the price of oil is the fact that income rather than price is the key determinant of the quantity demanded. p. 1

In a related item Bloomburg is reporting that many of the difficulties the major producers are having in increasing their production profiles. It sounds to me they need a new more innovative organizational construct supported by a capability based software developer. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Hamilton Energy Research Economics

Bloomberg is reporting

A little off topic but the scope of the economic difficulties is coming into focus. Bloomberg is reporting the Fed and Treasury are prepared to provide unlimited financial resources to the market to offset the threat of deflation. If you have read the Preliminary Research Report that I wrote in May 2004 I expressed a concern that if left unchecked, the economy could slide into a deflationary period that would be particularly brutal. It would seem that the Fed is in agreement that this must be avoided and is willing to spend up to $7.4 trillion to eliminate the risk. 

Are we not pushing on a rope? Having the value of money erode in the market is one thing. Having the governments contribute to its further erosion by dropping interest rates and bailing out potentially failed organizations just seems wrong. People need higher interest rates in order to encourage savings. The more logical solution to this problem is to get people motivated to invest by giving them a decent return for the risk they are taking in their investments.

We can generally agree that the source of this problem was the low interest rates of the early part of this decade. (See my entry on mis-allocation of capital.) When capital provides little to no returns, with high risks associated with those returns, money is considered cheap. If money had a cost, would it not allocate financial resources to the projects with the highest return. When money is worth little investments have little to compete with. When the government guarantees every and all transactions, a sloppiness in the capital allocation process starts us down the road to moral hazard. 

I know this is contrary to current economic thinking but I have to ask are we only making this problem greater by further diluting the already sloppy capital allocation that has been carried out? It seems to me to be the case.

Our current policies of expansive money supply were created in the great depression. They are assumed that these are the means in which to have the economy return to a normal operating environment. But is this assumption, which is based on the lone event of the great depression interpreted incorrectly? Stuffing the banks full of cash does not make them want to loan it out. Handing money to consumers does not make them want to spend. What motivation is there to take a risk?

One unforeseen consequence of this over-stimulated economy is the demand for energy was obviously significantly overstated. The current price declines are a reflection of the influence of deflation in a market and the long term capital deflation appears to be right around the corner.  To make matters worse, the decline in reserves and production are only exacerbated by the energy industries long term capital projects being shelved. How many times have we seen these big projects stopped and never return. It will be a gutsy investor who stands up and says their building a new offshore drilling rig. Making our future production horizons even more constrained.

There are serious distortions being introduced into the marketplace for energy. I think the dynamics of the industry are accelerating at a pace that many of us, and certainly myself, are only now realizing how fast paced this environment is. One last link to Bloomberg shows them suing the Fed in order to determine if the Fed has made an unannounced change in their policies and are targeting inflation; to eliminate the deflation by flooding the market with "printed money." If we already have the recession, why doesn't the Fed invert the yield curve to force the market interest rates to rise. Throwing cash around in a panic is only making everyone nervous.

Technorati Tags: People's Friedman Research Energy

Carliss Baldwin - Mirroring Hypothesis

Carliss Baldwin - Mirroring Hypothesis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.1 Product Architecture and Measures of Modularity

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

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

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

6. Discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please, join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Baldwin Research, Software Development

From transaction processing to transaction design.

To suggest that high levels of transaction processing will be included in People, Ideas & Objects should not be a surprise to anyone. This is standard fare in any system that manages the commercial aspects of an oil and gas concern. The real key in generating value in the oil and gas industry is in the area of what I call transaction design.

First lets get to one of the assumptions that I have used in preparing the Draft Specification. That is, the pursuit of growth within the organization is misguided. The focus of the producer firm is to determine where the value resides. Pursuing value versus growth implies that "activity", where both value is created and destroyed, will be eliminated through tools to design the transactions and their execution. This is done in the Accounting Voucher module of the Draft Specification.

The JOC is the method that the industry uses for all of its operational decisions. This is systemic on a global basis. Yet not one ERP system (Oracle, SAP & others) recognizes the JOC as the key organizational construct of the industry. It is also important to note, as I recently stated, the participants that sit on the JOC are ideally the actual investors that own the property. It will be those that are members of the JOC that evaluate the quantitative and qualitative analysis that supports the decisions being made.


What I am trying to say here is that the muddling of accountability across many organizations and departments leaves no one accountable for the success or mistakes that are made. The source of the bad decision could be in any one of the JOC member companies where analysis of what went wrong is not available to any of the other producers. Not that the idea is to punish people, but to learn from those mistakes and make sure they don't happen again. Mistakes are a necessary part of the innovation process. Without the capacity to analyze the mistakes that are made, will only fuel the same mistake being repeated elsewhere. The same is said for the successful operational decisions. What was it that caused the success to occur is a necessary analysis that should also be completed.

These elements of transaction design have been implemented in the Accounting Voucher module of the People, Ideas & Objects application. The interface elements of the module provide access to the information and resources that reside in the producers that are members of the JOC. This enables those members of the JOC to test and implement their understanding and what new science may have been developed. This is a key focus of how and where the innovation within the oil and gas industry will evolve. As the science increases, more innovative and creative uses of the science will be implemented, leading ultimately to more new science. This incremental looping is facilitated through the Accounting Voucher modules transaction design elements.

Technorati Tags: People's Specification Research Knowledge

What would an Anthropologist do.

In reviewing Professor Klein's paper on Entrepreneurial definitions and their impact on the oil and gas industry. I was asking myself, what types of jobs are going to be developed and necessary in the future. Is it reasonable to expect that by changing;

• The key organizational construct of the industry,
• Enabling the entrepreneur,
• Using the Accounting Voucher module to provide a more defined division of labor,
• The impact of Information & Communication Technologies (ICT).

Will the jobs that exist today in oil and gas be the same as in the future? It would seem a terrible waste if the users and developers came up with defined roles and responsibilities that essentially replicate what exists in an oil and gas firm today. I asked a similar question in a post entitled "Who would Henry Ford hire?"

How would they parse the "future" oil and gas worker's roles in the prospective oil and gas organization. What careers would develop, what careers other then management would recede, and would any role remain consistent from the current to the future era of the industry.

Today the study of Anthropology is asking these types of questions and in many cases, large software companies use Anthropologists to provide the answers. One of the definitions of Anthropology that I found is provided here.

Socio-cultural Anthropology is the study of cultures of living human populations, usually through ethnographic research. Socio-cultural anthropologists often study contemporary societies by observing human behavior while living and working in those communities. This is called "participant-observation". Traditionally such field work was conducted in rural, agrarian, or forager communities. Anthropologists now might also be found working in urban and "western" societies.

The nature of the research questions asked varies widely, but usually involves an attempt to understand the socio-political and economic structure of the community, relations within and between families, and also the relationship of the community to the physical environment within which it operates. Modern cultural anthropology might involve studies to address community socio-economic development, political empowerment, or social dislocation. This sort of anthropology may contribute to community development, or the alleviation of social inequity.

If we are to-do-more-with-less, as the retirement of the boomers suggests. The division of labor is the one proven method of increasing the output per worker. That is to say that all additional economic value is generated through the reorganization of people. These are the concepts that will enable the industry to meet the market demand for energy.

I wish to appeal to those that have an interest in making this software development project real. If you know of a producing company, or an oil and gas investor that is interested in sponsoring this project, please email the URL of the web log to them and join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Leadership Organization Research

Exxon, Shell, Apache...

The issue of declining production has struck the majority of producers in the oil and gas industry. The New York Times suggests total production declines may reach over 600,000 boe / day. Exxon, Shell and Apache, just as many others have reported, are showing a trend that supports the hypothesis of this blog's preliminary research report. That being;

• The corporate hierarchical organizational structure is an impediment to progress and most particularly innovation.

• Determine if the industry standard Joint Operating Committee, modified with today's information technologies, provides an oil and gas concern with the opportunity for advanced innovativeness.

Producers have also been spending record amounts on capital projects. Much of this increased funding is diluted by the costs associated with too-much-money chasing too-few-skills. Nonetheless producers are involved in a record number of projects. How often in life has doing more of the same; worked to mitigate fundamental changes in an industry?

Within the interpretation section of the preliminary report I suggested;

It is suggested in this research that the speed that a bureaucracy can adapt and change is inadequate for the operational demands of a future oil and gas operation. Innovation within the oil and gas industry will be required in order to keep up with the natural and increasing rate of decline in production. Where the sciences of geology and applied sciences of engineering, which cover a broad range, will need to progress substantially in the next 10 years in order to achieve the demand requirements of the North American energy consumers. p. 71

This claim of mine seems to have a tenuous hold on the legitimacy of me asserting my hypothesis is correct. What evidence is there that the dynamics of the underlying earth science and engineering disciplines have expanded to a higher level of understanding? A level of understanding that a bureaucracy, however large, is unable to comprehend or implement.

Possibly one of the most appropriate statements that has developed in 2008 is "the easy oil is gone". Captures the entire situation very well in my opinion. I'll be the first to agree that the contents of the preliminary research report were only extensions of my "sensing" that the demands of the business were accelerating beyond the bureaucracies capabilities. After 30 years in the business it was generally known that things were getting tougher, much tougher.

And not to discount the research that was done in the preliminary report. That of Professor Giovanni Dosi clearly defining what innovation is and what is necessary to be innovative. Or Professor Anthony Giddens Structuration Theory. A theory that suggests People, Society and Organizations move in lockstep, or failure will occur. I think we clearly see the current demands of society and people being ignored by organizations. Although no failure has occurred, one does not have to look too far. And Professor Wanda Orlikowski's Model of Structuration which suggests technology is a defining and reinforcing component of society. A model in which I coined the phrase "SAP is the bureaucracy".

The subsequent discovery of Professor Richard Langlois research on Transaction Cost Economics, The Boundaries of the Firm, and Market definitions. Dare I forget McKinsey Consulting's grounding of these theories in the current business environment. That the hypothesis and conclusions are based on this academic foundation prove that the Joint Operating Committee is the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. At least that is what is proven on paper. As we know the ability to subject a field of study to a paper document provides proof of the concepts contained within the written word. People are still trying to test the theories of Albert Einstien's, theories that he published in the very early 1900's.

Professor Thomas Davenport has also contributed to this research. His blog (his feed ) is frequently highlighted for some of the current thinking he has in business today. In the preliminary report I quoted him from "Strategy and Structure of Firms in the Attention Economy" stating;

Strategy and structure are mental constructs, important not in themselves, but for their impact on people in the organization. Strategy and Structure are also the vehicles for focusing attention. p. 51

But what tangible proof is there that these hypothesis, conclusions, research and concepts are valid? I sarcastically suggest two alternatives;

1. We continue the debate of these "theories" with industry for another five years.
2. We begin building the systems based on these concepts.

I naturally conclude that point two is the choice I would recommend. Producers are being allocated the financial resources to fuel the innovation that commodity markets are demanding. Since these financial resource's are being distributed to managements pockets, I ask what's the risk?

Still not satisfied? I suggest that you select the "Call-to-Action" label of the blog to review the 45 posts that provide even more grounding for these theories validity. Or, review the Draft Specification for this software development and see how fundamentally different and capable the JOC is to enabling innovation in the oil and gas industry. I have also posted the Preliminary Research Report on Innovation Within Oil and Gas in three knol pages here, here and here.(Editing not complete.)

Lastly, please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Research Call-to-Action Plurality Strategy

I knew this was the right path.

Were traveling down a dark and unknown path in this software development project. Much of what has to be discovered and learned is determined by feel more then any blueprint or map. I think this project is 100% on target to be successful in making the oil and gas producer execute its plan's faster and more innovatively. Today we have some proof that we are in the right place and time to achieve the success we desire.

Some research was carried out on the Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) type of software delivery model. Click on the title of this entry to be taken to the research web page. This article suggests the odds are against us with only a 20% success rate in the SOA business model. It also provides a guide as to what we are doing correctly. And I think a clear understanding of where we need to move to in order to achieve the success that we are expecting.

What are we doing right;

Failed SOA projects get too focused on the means rather than the end. The failure to focus on business goals is a problem and focusing on them is the solution. There is sometimes a failure to ask the most basic questions in building the business case for SOA. Why should we be building services? What does it mean at the end of the day?... While one of the business drivers for SOA is reducing costs and achieving return on investment (ROI), ROI for SOA remains an elusive goal and SOA project leaders frequently take a leap of faith where ROI is concerned.

People, Ideas & Objects is about identifying and supporting the industry standard Joint Operating Committee (JOC). Aligning of its financial, legal, operational decision making and cultural frameworks with the compliance and governance framework. Compliance and governance being the sole domain of the bureaucracy, the separation of operational decision making and compliance and governance is a recipe for disaster. Nonetheless, the stated objective of this software development project is to enable;

"This community, using this software in their own service business offering, will be the method and means that the oil and gas producer will conduct its most profitable commercial operations."

This is not about the technology. It is not about project management. Although this project uses these two disciplines to achieve the stated objective. This is about getting the business of the oil and gas producer in alignment with the rapidly changing earth sciences and engineering disciplines. This alignment facilitates innovation and enables the oil and gas producer to keep pace with the changes in the underlying sciences.

and

1. Business and IT reorganization, usually with a new CIO coming on board
2. Sponsorship at the C-level or by the Board of Directors
3. Agile/iterative development methodologies put into place
4. Projects tied to and measured by business goals, not IT drivers
5. Well-defined funding and maintenance models that balance the needs of service providers and consumers
6. A simplified architecture, making it easier to access and manage quality data
7. A culture of trust between business and IT

Here we have a mixture of opportunities and problems. Item #'s 3, 4, and 6 are in place in my opinion. Item # 1, 2, 5, and 7 are hitting on the one area that has caused this project to struggle, money and trust. This may be a short term problem as the community involved in this software development continues its logarithmic growth in the U.S. I fundamentally mis-trust the companies I highlighted in my review of stock based compensation. These little piggies attempt to steal this project from me during September 2003 and April 2004 has left a bad taste in my mouth. As such I will not miss them. I however am willing to fully participate with the U.S. and British based industries and any other region that wishes to participate. We have much to do, and as you may have guessed, I have a driving passion for this project.

With that in mind I am frankly grateful for this next set of recommendations.

• Define the business cases clearly. If you can’t, don’t do SOA
• Empower those who need to drive the systemic change that SOA requires, typically, with the money and the authority to do something. Else, don’t bother. You need to control the money and be able to fire people if this is to work in a reasonable amount of time. Otherwise, you’re in endless meetings with people who have agendas that don’t include rebuilding the architecture for agility and reuse.
• Think long term and strategic, not short term and tactical. It’s okay; things won’t collapse as you move from a reactive to a proactive mode. Indeed, that’s how companies win their markets.
• Start small, but keep the momentum going. Small battles win the war, and little by little the architecture will get better if you just keep moving the ball forward

I have a fear of the issue that these points intimate. We don't need to follow any blind bunny trails and desperately need to keep the focus and tract of development in-line with the needs of the producers. However, we need the resources to build this project. If as I suggested a few weeks ago the scope of this project might be in the billion dollar range, over probably four years. The smooth application of the financial resources over the life of the project is the obligation of the collective group of project sponsors. This project needs to be managed on a basis that delivers the application with these constraints and difficulties in mind. This I will diligently work toward.

Which leads me to reiterate the value proposition of this software development project. The costs of development are allocated to the producers on a "per barrel of oil / day" basis. These costs are incurred plus a percentage of those costs for the project. The costs therefore are a small percentage of what the license costs of SAP or Oracle. Once the project is released in a commercial offering the costs of supporting and further developments will be handled on the same basis.

This article brings out another point that was assumed but never identified or communicated. The SOA model within an oil and gas company doesn't provide the value an industry focused SOA solution does. Does this mean an SOA denotes that it is an industry focused solution? I think it does and it seems this research indicates that conclusion may be valid.

Technorati Tags: People's Architecture Knowledge Learning Research

15 TCF of Natural Gas

That was the volume of gas that Shell bought from Duvernay Oil Corp. The purpose of this entry is to provide a little more about the understanding of reserves.

Way back when the geological survey determined that Canada would potentially produce 150 TCF of natural gas. Updates to the survey show that Canada has produced a little over two thirds of what they once had.

Now Duvernay comes along and discovers 15TCF of gas? The question is, is this 10% of the 150 TCF or is it an addition to total 165 TCF. The answer is "I don't care". Reserves have taken on a distorted meaning in the Peak Oil crowd. They are meaningless in determining what the future potential of an entrepreneur can do if they truly understand the business. While the Peak Oil crowd and Cambridge Energy Research Associates were reviewing reserves, Duvernay got down to the business at hand. Getting down to the business at hand is available to everyone, everyone who is not so glazed over by the value of their stock options.

Technorati Tags: People's Exploration Innovation Research

The last 2 Draft Specifications!

Draft Specification - Performance Evaluation
Draft Specification - Analytics & Statistics

Two plus nine equal's eleven. These specifications are now the communities to take and build upon. The draft specifications are in a way a codification of my vision of what could be, and the research that I have conducted on the organizationally constrained producer companies.

I can not tell you how good it feels to have completed these.

Technorati Tags: People's Specification Development Research

Interesting research at Intel

We are all heading towards cloud based computing. Billions are being invested in centralized processing and storage facilities to offer processing and storage on demand. For Google to run their services requires them to own the most processing and storage power in the world. And has anyone stood up and asked if this an effective way to conduct computer based functions? Well Intel has and the results are surprising.

In a document released yesterday, Intel documents the research they did on the processing and network bandwidth demands of the two prominent methods of computing. Comparing "Virtual Hosted Desktop" with "Embedded Application" which relies on remote processing on a virtual server, to "Stream OS" with "Stream Application" which relies on streaming of operating system software to hardware client platforms.

The results show that streaming the operating system and application to the client platform for user based actions was, from a server perspective, far more efficient. 20 clients accessing the server for these services used only 1% of the servers performance. Whereas the "Virtual Hosted Desktop" solution took up to 45% of the server processing requirements for the same 20 clients. Intel even crippled the script of the test for the Virtual Hosted Desktops to remove the high processing required for graphics. I assume that the network bandwidth of data would be small and therefore incidental to the performance of either method.

Sun Microsystems has moved in this direction with their SPARC based offerings, Solaris and Java products. Using the "Stream OS and Application" method provides us with a reduction in processing requirements, and, an increase in performance on the client desktop. The only caveat that Intel mentioned was the initialization of operating systems on the client side could cause momentary increases in processing and network demands. Suggesting that "if" all 20 clients logged on at the same time, the systems may have performance issues.

This "Streaming" architecture provides the People, Ideas & Objects application with the performance and reliability that is necessary for the users. This architecture also allows us to control all the required software necessary for the user to do their jobs. Such that if there were a bug in the systems we would know about it, and who to fix it.

Technorati Tags: People's, Development, Research, Sun, Specification,

Two More Draft Specifications

I am pleased to submit to the community the Knowledge & Learning and, Research & Capability Draft Specifications. (Please note these modules are very similar and therefore each file contains both specifications). These are the eighth and ninth Draft - Specifications and I will complete the last two Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics Modules before the end of July 2008.

• Security & Access Control
• Petroleum Lease Marketplace
• Partnership Accounting
• Accounting Voucher
• Resource Marketplace
• Financial Marketplace
• Compliance & Governance
• Research & Capabilities
• Knowledge & Learning

Technorati Tags: People's, Specification, Research, Knowledge, Learning, Capabilities,

Why the companies.

In my last post I pointed the accusatory finger for this energy problem, at the oil and gas companies, particularly the majors. The first aspect of the accusation is that they knew, as I had pointed out, that their organizational constraints would limit their level of activity far below the market demands. This may seem a rather harsh point of view, which they should be given the benefit of the doubt about their knowing or not knowing. It was clear to many that this situation was inevitable, I was providing a solution, not identifying the problem.

The management of the companies knowing the situation would become as difficult as it is, undertook to do nothing. They were making money and would continue to do so when the prices went up. This lack of motivation to do anything was the choice of these managers. Show me a major producer that has earned any increase in their profits other then from higher prices.

Educating the public. Even today companies and their industry representatives claim to have no idea why prices are so high. What business are they in, do they mis-understand their markets so fundamentally? What could have been done in the past five years to mitigate the problems we face today? If consumers were given the real facts, would they have gone out to purchase the SUV they feel they are now stuck with? The duck and run from the truth policies of these organizations have allowed John Q. Public to walk blindly into the biggest issue ever facing mankind. The motivation to dip into the trough is strong with these managers.

In September 2003 I published a proposal to the industry to conduct the research of determining if the JOC was the key organizational construct. Given the opportunity to deal with this constructively, the industry represented by Petro-Canada, Encana, CNRL, Talisman and many others, chose to hire Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) to research the idea that I proposed! Shows you the scope of what these people are capable of. And I was not dealing with some low level manager; I was speaking with CEO's of these firms. Luckily for me I was able to complete the research ahead of CERA. In publishing the May 2004 report the only question that was asked was who paid for the research? Well I did, and now I own it lock, stock and barrel.

It's been this last point that really bothers the companies. They have no desire to ever let anyone derive any value from Intellectual Property. It is since this time I have been forced to find employment in other industries. So here the industry was presented with a workable idea that made more sense then anything they had read before. (My words). And they hush it up and try to kill it. Each of these companies struggles with the inability of SAP to do any after sales service, why would they refuse any new idea? And that is the last point that these organizations are culpable for, their efforts to kill this opportunity to solve this problem before it affected the consumers.

These companies are more or less suffering from a grid-lock organization that long ago failed. Recall in 2007 even Exxon lost 10% of their production base after spending an additional $25 + billion in capital. These dinosaurs will never be able to keep up with the decline in their production base and are therefore slowly rapidly dying. So who else, other then the consumers are suffering as a result of the manager’s lack of accountability and motivation? Clearly the shareholders are at a sizable risk as they watch the managers slowly run the company into the ground.

I am calling on those investors to fund the developments of this software development project. A means for which the shareholders could be provided with the alternate organizational systems enabling them to manage their assets. The current oil company managers know that in today's business environment you must have the electronic systems in place first, or you will be relegated to manual systems to run your operation. The managers have their investors over a barrel.

How much longer will these managers be left in control will be determined by the investor class. An investor class that happens to be comprised mostly of John and Jane Q. Public, the people that are now facing the energy problem. What is needed is for them to act as I see no other alternative.

Technorati Tags: People's, Call-to-action, Organization, Research, Failure,

Management of IP (Intellectual Property) in oil and gas

I have a few thoughts on how IP is developed and used in oil and gas and why it needs to change, quickly. First, as I have documented in the Resource Marketplace™ Module. The competitive advantage that a producer has is contained within their land and production base. The application of the earth sciences and engineering knowledge, understanding, and capability to their land and production base are the means in which to build value. The IP (intellectual property) is how the market provides the commercial means of building the producers value.

And IP is the markets way of building value and key competitive advantages. The holding of IP within a producer company is redundant, of no value and an impediment to innovation. The market uses the tools of IP to prepare the state of art research and knowledge for its own monetary gain and competitive offerings. In the hands of a producer IP is useless.

What would holding a number of patents on drill bits provide a producer such as Exxon Mobil? Or in this case, the IP of using the JOC as the key organizational construct? Again in the hands of a single producer it makes the ideas unavailable and unusable. In the hands of an entrepreneur it can build value for the entire industry. Neither of these two examples provide the producer with any strategic competitive advantage. Nor does the producer have the economics of scale to make the innovation or research worthwhile. They are not in the drill bit or software businesses.

Until the producers realize the IP is not their competitive advantage, and accept the markets holding of these ideas, the market will not respond to the needs of the producers. If the markets efforts are in vein and the producer just hands over one vendors IP to the next, nothing will develop that is different from today's $138 / bbl marketplace.

Not recognizing the IP of others as a practice will need to change before the producers can begin to approach the market demand for energy. For the past number of years the management of IP by the industry has been catastrophic. Other then the large suppliers such as Schlumberger, BJ and Halliburton's ability to file for patents. Most of the IP has been ignored by the producers so that they do not have to grant the monopoly rights to the technology developer. Since the energy industry is a primary business and 100% of the resource value is received by them, does not mean they can strip, cherry pick, abuse or otherwise attempt to steal the IP of the market.

Over the past 5 years my personal experience in this area has given me first hand knowledge of the depths of stupidity the companies taken the concept of IP ownership. This must stop for the betterment of society. If we continue in the fashion that we have, we will never be able to meet the markets demand for energy.

Central planning is dead, long live the market.

Technorati Tags: People's, IP, Market, Research,

Matthew Simmons on Peak Oil.

Matthew Simmons has written about the difficulties of the energy industry. In the early years his ideas were jeered by the industry, and as a result, he sharpened his pencil and double-checked his facts. Today I see him as being the foremost authority on the peak oil situation. Simmons presentation "Gauging the Risks of Peak Oil; will we face the limits to growth?" has been published on his website. I highly recommend downloading the slides and review the situation that he is talking about. His archives provide excellent resource material to the scope and scale of the peak oil issue.

Two questions that bring the immediacy of the problem we face in peak oil are asked on p. 37

• How ample are winter inventories? p. 37
• How fast can stocks drop before we breach minimum operating levels? p. 37

Suggesting that this winter may be the time where the inventories of crude and gasoline are dangerously close to a critical point where they are inadequate to meet consumers demand. This type of event, Simmons suggests, may start a "run on the bank" type of scenario where consumers will top up their tanks, and lead to the point where the distribution network is permanently damaged and unable to recover.

Simmons also makes the point that the makeup of the industries physical assets are in advanced states of age. Requiring an increase in the pace of asset replacement. With pipeline failures and refinery fires requiring more active budget and time requirements then in the past. This leads him to comment that something has to be done about the declining numbers of talent in the industry. I think we have to stop building individual silos of capability to "x" level and begin to think how it is we can expand the overall industry talent pool. I have suggested here, a pooling of industry resources in a market and firm definition that has each participant in the Joint Operating Committee's contributing available resources to the property. These pooled human resources adopting a military styled command and control governance model. This eliminates the redundancy of each producer having the capabilities on hand to complete the work that may be required, and relying on the market for those needs.

Needing these items is one thing, organizing where and how is another. If we approach this problem with a $ first attitude, we'll be revisiting the same, or even more dire consequences in 2 years from now. The point of this blog and its associated proposed software development is to establish the organizational means for the energy industry to mitigate peak oil and undertake these tasks that Simmons so effectively communicates.

As an optimist I find these challenges stimulating. As with all large challenges, human nature will surprise us with the solutions. I wrote recently about the 1700's and how Ludwig von Mises noted that the industrial revolution was the solution to population explosion. I think peak oil and its associated issues will challenge us to move to a higher level of civilization. And here, Simmon's reflects the sense of urgency that we begin this process.

It behooves all of us to take the risk of Peak Oil seriously, clamor for better energy transparency and take part in solving the 21st centuries greatest threat. p. 52

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Simmons, Research, Organization, Peak-Oil

Prophet of Innovation: Joseph Schumpeter and Creative Destruction.

Click on the title of this entry to be taken to the Google Book Search page for this book. I was introduced to the writings of Professor Richard N. Langlois, our key research author, through his being awarded the Schumpeter Prize in 2004, for his paper The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism. I'll admit I have not read the Prophet of Innovation, yet, and even if I had read it, that would not have been the point of the blog entry. Harvard Professor Thomas McCraw has participated in two PodCasts in the past few months. His promotion of his book brings up a number of very interesting points about the times that we live in today. It will be worthwhile for the readers of this blog to put this book on their reading list, Professor McCraw is a Pulitzer Prize Winner and therefore, easy to recommend.

The August 9, 2007 PodCast is on "Bloomberg on the Economy" with Tom Keene. He opens the PodCast with the comment that the Prophet of Innovation is the "Publishing event of 2007, the definitive one volume of Schumpeter." The opening discussion reviews Schumpeter's life and some of the key term's of which he became famous for. Like Creative Destruction is what entrepreneurs do. Will and the "emotion of our will" in making change. How the charismatic leader is someone who is bound and determined to change things.

"Successful innovation is more a matter of will then of intellect." The shear effort necessary to carry out the tasks that face our energy industry are possibly the largest issues we have faced to date. Our way of life will be challenged by the reduction in energy production. I also think this is the point in time where mankind will stand up and prove that we can, through force of the will that Schumpeter comments on, make the necessary changes and prosper in a future that few can imagine today. This new world is right around the corner and promises to bring democratic freedoms to their highest levels attainable.
Professor McCraw's book shows how barriers that confront entrepreneurs have to be overcome, and hence this obsession or will has to be maintained throughout the adventure. Many new entrepreneur's, on the scale of Henry Ford will be needed to solve these problems. The entrepreneur's character and disposition are some of the things that Schumpeter identified and valued and McCraw has documented in his book.

The second podcast of Professor McCraw's is on October 8, 2007 on EconTalk with Professor Russ Roberts. Schumpeter was believed to be the one who first noted the role and value of vision in business. To see the future in a vision of what, where and how the changes could improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the business is a key attribute of the entrepreneur. But there is something more. Professor's Roberts and McCraw discuss the important difference between innovation and invention. Leonardo DaVinci never built an airplane. He invented it, or was at least the first to think about it. He never took the next step that is critical of the entrepreneur. "Doing the thing" is what McCraw describes that Schumpeter focused on as the key difference between innovation and inventions definitions.

The other key attribute noted by Schumpeter was the concept of the business cycle's influence in the innovative marketplace. Business fail and that is the natural way of economic progress. There was a time when people thought that businesses would never fail, however today we know that not to be the case. The difference is the founding entrepreneur is consumed by a feverish perseverance that drives the business further then the competitors. Succession of the business, whether through the family or size, can not capture this fever and therefore makes the business susceptible to failure.

Who will be the leaders and entrepreneur's in this new era in energy. We do not know. I am certainly doing all that I can to ensure the most efficient organizational structure is supported by a highly capable software development team so that those entrepreneur's can operate as efficiently as possible.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Reference, Research, Schumpeter