Our Revenue Model Part II

In this our second instalment that details our Revenue Model, we apply and extend Professor Jurgen Habermas’ 1960’s theory of different knowledge interests. Building on yesterdays discussion of People, Ideas & Objects value proposition, and targeting the oil and gas producers as the sole source of revenue, this post will delve into the difficult question regarding what we need these systems for.

We need to ask ourselves what we need these systems for. Are we developing systems that manage the commercial operations of an oil and gas producer? Of course we are, but that does not address the societal and individual needs of these systems. If we continue to look at just the needs of the producers, then we are leaving many needs unaddressed. Society and individuals are critical elements of a successful oil and gas industry. For example society benefits by having producers and the service industries efficiently interact and develop profitable operations, and individuals create innovative solutions to the demand they see for their services. Overall organizations, individuals and society benefit by an increased and expanding division of labor and specialization.  In today’s globalized, high technology workplace, an expanded division of labor and specialization can be more efficiently created through a software development capability like that described by People, Ideas & Objects in its Draft Specification.

When we concern ourselves with the economic output of the oil and gas industry. To expand that output requires that we organize based on greater levels of specialization and a further division of labor. The responsibility for increasing output does not fall to society, individuals or organizations in isolation but to all three. Therefore it is reasonable to state that what we need these systems to address society, individuals and organizations needs. I do not foresee the further development of the division of labor occurring without the active involvement of systems development. In a somewhat deliberate manner where all groups are represented.

If we look critically at the division of labor, and eliminate some of the constraints to expanding it further. Constraints like the limitations of working within one firm or one Joint Operating Committee (JOC). If an individual has the capacity to apply their skills to a task for a geographical region that includes 100 producers and 200 JOC’s, the efficiencies could be substantial. The ability to manage a task in this fashion doesn’t exist within our current organizational context. Maybe it should.

Following on the logic of the previous post, where the producer firms are the sole source of the revenue for People, Ideas & Objects and associated communities. Sharing the input of these systems development across society, individuals and the organizations might appear to be inconsistent with the reality that 100% of the funds are coming from the producers.

That’s why the People, Ideas & Objects revenue model shares the one time development costs across the subscribing producers. Just because the producer firms receive 100% of the proceeds of oil and gas sales, doesn't mean that they earn 100% of the revenues of the oil and gas sales. Individuals and society have a role and responsibility in these systems and therefore, these need to be considered irrespective of the desires of the producer firms. We’re not going to develop systems that address the needs of society, individuals and organizations when producers have a disproportionate influence due to their control of the revenue stream.

To sustain this software development requires that we cease being subjected to the individual decisions of one or more producers. A company that chooses not to proceed with the development or implementation of these technologies can not hold up the greater benefit of all concerned. Essentially I am stating that the decision to support these communities needs to be made where appropriate representation considers the needs of all concerned. Looking at the cost benefit analysis of supporting this software from the point of view of only one producer misses the benefits to society and individuals.

Habermas theories deal with the issues of power, influence and most importantly emancipation.

But when it comes to using science or computers to change the relations of power in our society, when emancipation is put forth as a knowledge or development interest, then the question of values becomes more controversial. Who is to be emancipated, and from whom? Who is to loose power, and who is to gain? And how can it be the business of scientists or computer professionals to take part in a political struggle for power?

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

Technorati Tags: People's Revenue-Model Development Organization Orlikowski Value-Proposition

Our Revenue Model Part I

When looking for the revenues for People, Ideas & Objects and its associated user communities, all paths lead to the oil and gas producers. This is the logical choice as they are also the primary benefactor from the use of the applications and communities development. In latter posts we will document that society and individuals also derive benefits. However, oil and gas is a primary industry that generates over $3 trillion in annual revenues. It is the source of value generation for itself and a variety of industries that provide it with products and services. It is therefore logical and appropriate that we focus on producers to generate the revenues for these communities. So how is it that People, Ideas & Objects and these communities raise the funds for these software products and associated services. The answer to this and other questions is what will be defined as our “Revenue Model” in this and subsequent blog posts.  

With these points in mind it is important to restate our value proposition. People, Ideas & Objects provides the oil and gas producer with a user focused software development capability. The costs incurred in developing and hosting the software application are charged to the industry once. Providing a value proposition that is substantially more competitive then any other ERP vendor. To cover the development and associated user community costs, use of the software by the producer requires payment of all of the fees retroactively to January 1, 2010. For 2010 these fees were determined to be $1 per barrel of oil equivalent production per day. Based on these factors, a producer that produces 50,000 barrels of oil per day ($1.4 billion in annual revenues.) would be assessed $50,000.00 for the 2010 calendar year. Motivation to participate in a timely fashion is provided by assessing 300% penalties for any payments that remain outstanding after March 31 of the billing year. All fees and penalties from 2010 forward are to be paid prior to the producers use of the software. These revenues will be used to offset the costs of developing the software. Users are not charged for their use of the software.

The $1.00 fee that is assessed on each barrel of oil equivalent could theoretically generate $120 million during 2010 for People, Ideas & Objects. Our motivation is to expand the volume of energy that the fee is assessed upon. Raising the rate assessed per barrel would also increase our revenue, however, increasing the volume of energy production represented in our assessment base provides a stronger value proposition for all concerned. It is critical to recall that the costs associated with the second copy of the software is zero. Therefore the costs of development are allocated over the entire subscribing producer base. The producer firm receives, just in the first year, a potentially $120 million software application for a small portion of the actual costs.  


At an average price of $77.00 per barrel of oil. The percentage costs of the People, Ideas & Objects fee for 2010 equals 1 / 28,105 = 0.0035%. Determination of the annual fee is based on the projected costs of the software development and communities plus an element of profit for People, Ideas & Objects. Inherent in this pricing is the belief that the applications are never considered static, but are in perpetual development, therefore the firm remains profitable and motivated to continuously improve the applications.


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

Technorati Tags: People's Revenue-Model Development Value-Proposition Policies Community

Focusing on our Revenue Model

We will now begin our focus on this software development project and associated communities revenue model. (These posts will be aggregated under the new Revenue-Model label.) The purpose of these posts will be to fully explore the contradictions and conflicts inherent in developing the revenue to support People, Ideas & Objects software development and associated communities. We will be asking difficult questions that reveal these conflicts, questions like what are these systems developments for, and how do we sustain the financial support throughout the development life cycle. 

It is expected through the discussion of our revenue model, that producers will begin the process of financially supporting these developments and communities. Much of the discussion will bridge the surreal world in which this project currently resides, with a prospective future that promises to surprise. I guarantee an interesting discussion. 


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

Technorati Tags: People's Revenue-Model Focus Value-Proposition