Towards an Evolutionary Theory of Production Part B

In Part A of this secondary research review of Professor Winter's document. Winter raised two important points that provide companies with the opportunities, risks and rewards involved in the theory of production. The two key points were firstly, the production set of possibilities, and secondly the development and deployment of that knowledge. Suggesting that the production methods employed and operational today were based on the less then optimal choices. Winter suggests that today provides an opportune time to revisit the "evolution of production" and I concur.

There are some nasty pitfalls documented by Professor Winter in Part A of this document review. The software being built here for the oil and gas industry must avoid these pitfalls. But, also provide a production set of possibilities and opportunities for the producer to select the optimal solution for the situation at hand. Part B of this paper will discuss Winter's theories on "replication". Or how to deploy the optimal production process across the organization.

3. Replication

Thus, if management wishes to replicate at B the success it is having at A, a first challenge it faces is to devise methods to evoke the transfer of details of which it is unaware, including some of which nobody is aware, and some that represent information that is in various ways "impacted". This is a tall order that can never be filled completely; the gaps in the transfer will be filled by independent re-invention.

It is at this point I need to ask whom does "own" the "production set" of possibilities? Does a specific company or team of individuals? No one? Whom can effectively aggregate, develop and deploy the production set of possibilities. The competitive differentiating factors of the producer are based on its scientific capability, innovativeness and land base. These form what John Seeley Brown and John Hagel classified as an Innovation Management business. A new classification of either Innovation, Infrastructure or Customer Management would apply to all businesses within an industry. I find these theories resonate with my perception of the future. I see the producer filling the role of innovation, software developers providing the infrastructure and therefore these questions are valid. Who owns the knowledge of the production set of possibilities? Who is in the best position for their development, and whom is also responsible for them?

This ownership issue is a very fine point of conflict that will need to be determined through this software development project. The determination may involve whom provides the best solution to the energy industry. A large portion of these points fall within the domain of intellectual property and specifically, Patents. This topic will be discussed extensively due to the sensitive nature of the conflict. The solution to this issue will need to select the appropriate environment to which area (Innovation or Infrastructure) "should" be responsible for providing the definition of the production set and then replicating it from A to B, C,...

The literature of situated cognition points to the fact that the productive knowledge exercised at A exists in an intimate interconnection with the context of activity at A, both in its designed and coincidental feature. Of particular importance here are the "artefact's," tools and / or equipment used in the work (Hutchins 1995; Hutchins and Klausen 1996). In contemporary work settings, crucially important knowledge is often embedded in the equipment, and the local understanding of its functioning is narrowly instrumental. Computers and software are the most ubiquitous and familiar examples of this issue, but there are "low tech" examples as well. The spatial organization of activity at the micro level affects patterns of interaction and communication, and this can affect outcomes in ways that are not fully recognized or understood. (Bechky 2001). pp. 34

This last quote makes it appear that Winter would site the artefact's of tools, equipment have been the traditional area where the knowledge was embedded. In current times the computers and software "are the most ubiquitous and familiar examples of this issue". Possibly denoting where the analysis of this conflict will lead.

In some cases, top management may be totally unaware of the fact that considerations in these various categories are relevant to success. For example, this is inevitably so for procedural details that have been learned without awareness. In many cases, however, it is fairly obvious that the success of an activity depends in various ways on features of its context. Management may understand very well, for example, that the skills and personalities of employees have considerable bearing on the results achieved. pp. 36

Replication in Practice.

Winter has some particular salient warnings in the following quotations. That management may not take these points in consideration at their peril.

The above discussion suggests that replication is potentially quite challenging. It is not necessarily viewed as such, however. Often, management seem to take quite a relaxed attitude toward such challenges. While the relaxed attitude may be justified in some cases, it is arguable that many managers still have a good deal to learn about the subject. Where special circumstances force the issues to management attention, such as the technological peculiarities of semiconductor production (Intel), or MacDonalds' strategic devotion to a uniform customer experience, we do see managerial practices that are consistent with the general picture offered above. The example of Intel's Copy EXACTLY! policy (McDonald 1998) is particularly valuable because it rests precisely on the recognition that there is more productive knowledge implied in achieved high yields than the organization can capture in the form of comprehensive causal understanding of the method in use. pp. 37

And secondly, the exponential difficulty that is evident when interactions are populated with additional options.

This is not at all the case; the point is to control the amount of new learning and problem solving required. Every decision to create a difference between the sites makes an addition to an invisible list of unintended and hidden differences that will occur in spite of the policy. Interaction effects tend to make complexity rise exponentially with the number of discrepancies to be dealt with; it is better to keep the list as short as possible. There will be no shortage of problems to solve. There are several reasons why the problematic aspects of replication often go unnoticed. A basic one, surely, is that exploiting existing knowledge from the original site is rarely an end in itself. pp. 37

4. Production Theory Evolving

One of the competitive advantages of this software offering that differs from SAP and Oracle is the ability to exercise the fact that the costs of goods sold for the second and subsequent copies of the software is zero. This value is being captured by the Energy Industry in a lower cost offering through this development. Industry pays for the developments once. Then pays the associated costs of supporting and improving the application over its life time. Not each time there is a sale, but once and only once. This is where I would assert that these issues being discussed reside for the betterment of the energy industry. Professor Winter touches on these points with the following and final comments:

That knowledge and information are not exhausted by use in a kind of economic magic, a cheerful exception to the manifold scarcities that give the dismal science its name. pp. 39

and

To extend the use of existing knowledge in time and space is not at all the trivial matter it is often made out to be. pp. 39

and

Intra-firm homogeneity of method across establishments is definitely not something that just happens; it is something that happens when managements work hard to achieve it and devote substantial resources to the task. pp. 40

Technorati Tags: Genesys, LEM, WInter, Software, Capabilities, Innovation, Production

Toward an Evolutionary Theory of Production, Part A

Professor Sidney G. Winter, December 2002

With over 2700 words of quotation I am well beyond the fair use doctrine of using Professor Winter's paper. As I mentioned before I will make him whole when I have completed this comprehensive and valuable secondary research. What we have discovered to this point was nicely summarized in the table I published here. The "Production Costs" were assigned to the market with the secondary assignment being to the firm. The topic of discussion at this point is associated with these "Production Costs" however in the form of their interaction and determining the production function. Winter states this nicely in the following quotes, and points to an evolutionary theory of the production process. So the topic of this discussion is deeply related to "Production Costs" although it is more to do with the development of production possibilities based on multiple cost scenarios.

"It should be obvious that evolutionary economics needs to strike quite a different balance. Evolutionary thinking sees questions of production as tightly and reciprocally connected with questions of coordination, organization and incentives. Also, production activity is embedded - now more then ever - in a variety of processes of knowledge creation; theory needs to make room for those links. A major deficiency of the mainstream theory is its isolation from the realities of organizational knowledge. Above all, the evolutionary economy needs theory to address questions of economic change, not the principles of resource allocation in a hypothetical static world." pp. 1

Why we are now discussing the topics of the boundaries of the firm, the Schumpeterian thinking and theory of production is well articulated in Winters argument. What he is essentially saying is the production method chosen may have been selected for other then optimal reasons. That the time frame in which we find ourselves in is an ideal time to readdress these previous decisions, more with an eye to the optimal solution.

"The dominance of the production function apparatus in contemporary mainstream treatments of technological change is also a "Panda's thumb" phenomenon; it reflects the logic of path-dependent evolution (Gould). The apparatus was created and developed for various other reasons, and when questions of technological change came to be confronted it was conveniently available. The inherited apparatus was then extended and supplemented by a variety of formal treatments of technological change, the simplest being the introduction of the multiplicative fact A in the relation Q = Af(x). Negligible attention was paid to the question of whether plausible real-world mechanisms might actually produce knowledge changes with effects that correspond to these formalisms; the formalisms are convenient and hence chosen for reasons other than micro-level verisimilitude. The major investment in building a truly knowledge-based production theory, well-suited to close analysis of the problems of change, was never made. Recently, however, some beginnings have at least been made." pp. 2

Professor Winter provides support for a theory of how the various inputs and outputs of a production process provide an essentially known set of production possibilities. That a production set of possibilities provides a means to provide for a multitude of options in a business. This accurately describes the oil and gas industry. There are many ways to proceed with the drilling and completion of wells, and how the variety of possibilities provides little in terms of a consistent standard manner of interpreting and optimizing production. The scientists and engineers' craft is augmented by the strategic opportunities and issues that the industry face as well. Winter provides this as somewhat of a direction towards a new or "evolutionary theory of the firm".

"It was in introducing this problem that he (Wicksteed 1894 An Essay on the Coordination of the Laws of Distribution) made the notion of the production function explicitly in economic analysis for the first time in the following terms: The Product being a function of the factors of production we have P = f(a, b, c, ...)2. Neither in this statement nor in Wicksteed's subsequent analysis is there any hint that there is anything conceptually problematic about the idea of such a function; it is merely a mathematically explicitly expression of the long familiar idea that if the input quantities vary, the output quantity will vary as well, and in certain characteristic ways." pp. 5

"It is the production set concept that stands, in contemporary formal theory, for the classical idea of a "state of the arts" or for an "existing state of technical knowledge." Arrow and Hahn concisely say"

"Thus the production possibility set is a description of the state of the firms knowledge about the possibilities of transforming commodities."

"To assume that the production set has certain properties - for example, those that correspond to the linear activity analysis model - is thus an indirect way of imputing analogous properties to the "state of knowledge" that the production set describes. I have proposed here that this indirect approach may be understood as a reflection of the historical development of the theory. In the modern synthesis of the subject, production sets are a fundamental concept, production functions are a derived construct, and marginal productivity schedules are an implied attribute of production functions." pp. 9

It is at this point that Professor Winter opens the doors wide on the possibilities of more. What would happen in oil and gas if all the known methods and procedures that were available and could be immediately quantified to determine the optimal route to pursue the optimal production. I am suggesting here that a large collaboration with in the oil and gas industry, through the joint account, in real time, where I have suggested that the industry capability be determined in terms of the whole industry as opposed to the knowledge and understanding that is currently constrained by the individual or silo-ed companies. That this resource is commanded and controlled within the industry to what I have suggested as the Military Styled Command and Control governance structure. But Winter doesn't stop there, he takes it further to suggest that the limits to production knowledge have been constrained over the years. Hence the potential of yielding greater returns is suggested by Winter in;

Thus it happened that it became much easier for the theorist to describe the logical connection between the production set and the production than to explain the substance of what the production set supposedly represents - a state of knowledge. This neglect of the independent conceptual anchoring of the production set idea has inhibited both the recognition of its limitations and the development of alternative and complementary theoretical treatments of productive knowledge. The following section initiates the discussion of such treatments by exploring the central concept itself. pp. 10

2. The Nature of Productive Knowledge

Dr. Winter begins to deal with the human element of organizations as he discusses what an organization knows. The "learning by doing" and "learning by using" covered in my May 2004 publication provides an understanding of how organizations and people obtain tacit knowledge. Learning is a key competitive tool of the oil and gas industry. Next to NASA, the oil and gas industry is the most scientific business there is. The knowledge contained within each company is massive. How this information is managed could have benefits for the industry, particularly at a time when the expected retirements of senior staff is expected in the 5 to 15 year time frame. The following is a series of quotes that offer some salient criticisms and issues for the oil and gas industry.

However, an important implication of the discussion to follow is that a narrow focus on what goes on in human minds can seriously impede understanding what goes on when organizations produce things. That sort of understanding is the true objective here, and the scope of the term "productive knowledge" is therefore deemed to be expandable as necessary to cover whatever needs to be understood. pp. 11

and

"For engineers, production managers and corporate strategists, the visible face of the validity problem is the question of transferability across time and space. The process worked well today, will it also work well tomorrow? If we build similar facility in a remote location, can we confidently expect that one to work as well? The salience of these questions depends critically on the degree to which the answers seem to be in doubt. When experience seems to confirm the temporal and spatial transferability of the knowledge in use, it quickly acquires a "taken for granted" character. When problems arise, attention is directed to them until they are solved 'for practical purposes." Under both conditions, the judgements made are not those of philosophers or scientists who care about the validity question for its own sake, but of practical people who need to get a job done and have other urgent demands on their attention." pp. 12

Hence the paradox that employees face each day. The motivational and cognitive paradox were discussed in my May 2004 paper. In it, it refers to Dr. Wanda Orlikowski's Model of Technology Structuration which incorporates the motivational and cognitive paradox. Her paper is available on DSpace. We are running the risk of hopping down a bunny trail if we are not careful, however these two paradox are important to refresh our memories.

"Based on extensive studies of user's experience with word processors, Carroll and Rosson (1988) identified two significant paradoxes; The motivational paradox arises from the production bias. That is, users lack the time to learn new applications due to the overwhelming concern for throughput. Their work is hampered by this lack of learning, and consequently productivity suffers. The cognitive paradox has its root in the assimilation bias. People tend to apply what they already know in coping with new situations, and can be bound by the irrelevant and misleading similarities between the old and new situations. This can prevent people from learning and applying new and more effective solutions." (Cox, Delisle 2003)

Professor Winter shifts gears again and immediately begins to discuss the risks of too much change, too many changes without the full recognition of the processes in operation.

While modern thinking may dismiss some beliefs and related practices as plainly superstitious and others as ill-founded, the line between superstition and practical knowledge is oftentimes difficult to draw. pp. 13

and

A striking and well documented example of the issues concerns the role of the water temples in the irrigated rice agriculture of Bali. In the traditional system that had developed over a period of more that a thousand years, the allocation of water among hundreds of farming communities was governed by the priests of the water temples. The temple system was responsive to the variation of rainfall by elevation, seasonally, and from year to year. Implicitly, it dealt with an underlying trade off between the requirements of pest control, which is facilitated by synchronized planting and harvesting among the farms, and the problems of allocation, which is complicated by synchronized decisions. This traditional system was disrupted when the government promoted change in agricultural practices a the time of the "Green Revolution" in the early 70's. The result was a brief period of increased productive, followed by a collapse caused by increasing pest problems and water shortages. Fortunately, the traditional system had been under scholarly examination by anthropologist J. Stephen Lansing, who extended his investigation into a systematic comparison of the ecological consequences and economic effectiveness of the traditional and officially promoted systems. Ultimately - but only after many years - this research led to a reversal of policy and an ensuing recovery of productivity (Lansing 1991; Lansing, Kremer et al. 1998) Professor Lansing commented, "These ancient traditions have wisdom we can learn from."

and

The unifying generalization here is that agricultural production is highly exposed to contextual influences arising in imperfectly understood natural systems of great dynamic complexity. pp. 14

These components need to be dealt with during this software development. If the wrong processes are baked into the software, that would be a disaster. Hence the important role that a user provides in making these developments driven by their collective needs. Dr. Winter provides a real time example in a highly controlled, scientific business, that being of Intel and their change processes.

"A semiconductor factory (a "fab") and its operating procedures can be viewed as an enormous and costly effort to achieve strong "experimental control" on the production process for semiconductor devices, made in the interest of attaining consistently high yields." pp. 14

and

"Elements that might (superficially) appear to be superstitious even appear in codified organizational practice, as in Intel's "Copy EXACTLY" technology transfer policy:
Everything which might affect the process or how it is run is to be copied down to the finest detail, unless it is either physically impossible to do so, or there is an overwhelming competitive benefit to introducing a change. Of course its true basis is not superstition, but a very rational adaptation to the reality that understanding of what does matter is limited." pp. 15

and

"Finally, there is one major consideration limiting the validity of productive knowledge that the examples of agriculture and semiconductor production may not adequately suggest: people are involved. People are also involved as the customers, the consumers, the ultimate arbiters of productive achievement. When the product is corn or computer chips, it may be reasonable to consider that the "experiment" ends when the product appears, and set the customer response aside as a separate problem. But what if the product is education business consulting health care, elder care or day care, entertainment, or just "the dining experience"?" pp. 17

and

Quite rational satisficing principles dictate that investment in the quest for understanding be deferred until there is a symptom of trouble to deal with. When the pace is fast and the competitive pressure intense, such deferral may even involve suppression of ordinary skepticism about the rationale for prevailing ways of doing things. Paradoxically, "practical men" are constrained to be gullible, while high standards of proof are a luxury reserved to certain cliques among the inhabitants of the ivory tower. pp. 18

Distributed Character.

Professor Winter brings up the point that the individual knowledge is one issue, other issues such as work groups, teams, organizations and I am going to suggest clusters, such as Calgary, Houston and Aberdeen, each contain bodies of knowledge that may be both competitive and complementary.

A third distinctive attribute of productive knowledge is that it frequently resides in work groups or organizations rather than in individuals. This is not simply a matter of the same knowledge being held by several individuals, although such common knowledge may play an important role. Neither is it adequately captured by the image of complementary specialized skills being coordinated in the execution often exists only as it is evoked in the actual activity of the group. It is crucially a matter of distributed knowledge, i.e., of complementary parts of the same functional unit of knowledge being held by several individuals and applied in a coordinated way - the coordination itself being a crucial aspect of the knowledge. pp. 22

Accepting the view that knowledge can reside in a group is in this sense a "forced move". Just as practice allows an individual to improve in the performance of a complex skill through improved coordination, so the shared practice of a group permits patterns of multi-person coordinated action to arise, improve and stabilize. pp. 23

In recent years, the fact that productive knowledge often resides in groups rather than in individuals has received increasing attention both from business firms and from scholars outside of the economics discipline. There has been a striking degree of mutual reinforcement between the interest in these issues on the business side, driven by the practical concerns of an increasingly knowledge - based economy, and academic scholarship. pp. 25

To put it another way, it is hard to find a potential barrier to the movement of knowledge that does not function significantly as an actual barrier: national boundaries matter, firm boundaries matter, plant boundaries matter and even within - plant boundaries matter (Dyer 1998). To explicate the functioning of such a complex, multi-level system of distributed knowledge stands as a major challenge for theorists. pp. 28

These last few quotes reflecting the energy industry is not alone in approaching these issues. Clearly the majority of all businesses face similar knowledge and employee retention systems. It appears to me that the level and quality of the research in these specific areas is increasing. However, the difficulty ahead is accurately reflected by the two concepts that Winter has put forward in this paper. The interactions between these cause the complexity of the problem to accelerate in my opinion. The production set of possibilities that an individual, group, organization or cluster has at its disposal is one aspect of how the knowledge is deployed, the problem being where did it come from, how reliable and accurate is it. These issues can best be summed as the underlying issues around tacit knowledge. Its value, difficulty in obtaining and relying upon. The next issue that Winter brings is one of how the capture of tacit knowledge can be replicated throughout an organization or even an industry. That will be discussed in a Part B of this paper.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Winter, Strategy, LEM, Capabilties, Production-Set, Knowledge

Where we're at.

This past month we seem to have travelled quite far in terms of the optimal organizational structure for producers. A summary table of the concepts and roles of each component would help to provide clarity of all the issues we have discovered and discussed. This table recalls the basic premise of this work being the Joint Operating Committee, and adds to it the work of Langlois, Foss, Winter and Dosi. As this research is ongoing and the table would be considered subject to adjustment in the near future. However, I think it currently provides the oil and gas worker with an understanding of where the roles of the firm and market begin and end.

I have separated the various areas of responsibility and frameworks into either the Market or Firm. Within each construct I placed the "P" as the item being a Primary role or "s" as being a secondary role within in the market or firm. Each category / construct can then be seen to provide the separation of responsibilities, the boundaries of the firm and the division of duties.

Construct	Market	Firm
Joint Operating Committee	P	s
Military Styled Command and Control	s	P
Transaction Costs	s	P
Production Costs	P	s
Innovation	P	s
Routine, compliance and accountability	s	P
Research	s	P
Development	P	s
Financial Framework	P	s
Legal Framework	P	s
Cultural Framework	P	s
Operational Decision Making Framework	P	s

P = Primary
s = secondary

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Dosi, Langlois, Military-Command, Plurality, Research, Winter

Towards a Neo-Shumpterian Theory of the Firm.

Professor Sydney G. Winter is the Deloitte and Touche Professor of Management at The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. The Wharton School consistently ranks as one of the best business schools on the globe. I have read Professor Winter's works before, particularly in combination of the work that he has co-authored with Professor Giovanni Dosi. The title of this article stood out in terms of a good follow through on Professor Langlois' theories.

In the abstract, Professor Winter provides a little more focus in to the theme of this research;

"Schumpeterian analysis requires an intuitively appealing and realistic conceptualization of the distinction between routine and innovative behavior, and in particular, a conceptualization relevant to complex organizations and complex tasks."

Which leads me to ask, is Professor Winter stating that innovation can be handled by the Joint Operating Committee, and "routine" tasks handled by the Military Styled Command and Control Structure? This role definition helps to understand the division of labor and the barriers of the firm in assigning tasks. However, I would state that these classifications are both right and wrong. The role of the Military Styled Command and Control Structure (MSCC) is not limited to compliance and routine. The most important aspect of the firm is well represented in the case study of Chrysler by Thomas H. Davenport and John C. Beck in "The Strategy and Structure of Firms in The Attention Economy." (This document is behind a paid wall but you may be able to find elsewhere. It is in the March / April 2002 Ivey Business Journal.)

"One example, of both a problem and a solution, is the Chrysler division of DaimlerChrysler. In the early 1990's, it shifted to cross-functional "platform teams" that managed the entire process of developing a new vehicle. Over all, these teams worked well, producing both successful new car designs and shorter development cycles. But the functional organization that had focused attention on producing and maintaining technical skills was no longer in place. Soon, technical experts found themselves working not with others of their ilk, but with manufacturers, marketers and financial experts on cross-functional issues. The result? A recurrence of quality problems that Chrysler had previously solved. The company is now attempting to turn some of its attention to increasing functional and technical knowledge by organizing "Tech Clubs," so that engineers in specific domains of car development can meet with each other and exchange ideas. In general, matrix structures such as these create attention problems; our innate focus on hierarchy and threat / reward does not match well with situations where it is not clear which dimension is the primary one. But Chrysler's Tech Club approach, a kind of "stealth" matrix, avoids this problem by giving only informal legitimacy to a second dimension of structure. It's important to understand that the balancing act here is not about power, but rather about attention; Chrysler needs employees to stay focused on the process of developing new vehicles, but not forget about enhancing their technical skills. The Tech Club structure seems to get that balance just about right." pp. 52

Just as Chrysler needed to redeploy "Tech Club's" to recapture the engineering capability that was no longer being developed in the "platform teams". And it would probably be safe to say the engineering capability atrophied under Chrysler's revised organizational structure. For oil and gas I see the potentially similar atrophy of earth sciences and engineering capabilities by leaving the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) as the only organizational construct and relegating the Military Styled Structure to "routine" tasks. The scientific capability and the strategic land base of the producer are two of the primary areas of responsibility that those members of a producers MSCC are providing. The nature of the MSCC is about the "firm", and the JOC is about the "market" to relate them back to the discussion around Professor Langlois' theories. Professor Winter takes these concepts to the next step with this quote.

"But the edge of production set is the edge of an abyss so far as technical knowledge is concerned: We there encounter the Great Unknown. When an attempt is made to introduce the phenomenon of technological change into this conceptual scheme, the theorist is almost forced to try to play the new game by the old rules. This means that certain production possibilities are suddenly extracted from the Unknown and added to the Known. There is ordinarily no analysis as to why particular possibilities rather than others should be thus discovered, and considerations of mathematical convenience determine, by default, the path of technological development is such a theoretical world." pp. 3

The oil and gas industry is not static. We are entering a time where the demands of the engineers and geologists is accelerating at a ferocious rate. Innovation will straddle both the JOC and MSCC organizational constructs. How much of these capabilities, innovation capabilities and scientific capabilities, are captured, managed, enhanced, tested, and redeployed within the JOC and MSCC? What I want to do here is ensure that the "routine" tasks of "transaction costs" and accountability are not the only responsibility of the MSCC. I would suggest the MSCC is the "research" and the JOC is the "development" in the traditional Research and Development classifications. This is an overall objective of this re-organization of the industry, to enhance the speed, innovativeness and capability of the producer and the industry. Professor Winter adds some more problems and opportunities to these concepts;

"But "knowing how to bake a cake" is clearly not the same thing as "knowing how to bring together in one place all of the ingredients for a cake". pp. 4

and

"Just to have a label, let us call this level of discussion of a technique the conceptual level as distinguished from the operational level discussed earlier. Two points should be made about it." pp. 6

Here we have a clear definition of the roles within the various organizations. Are you able to bake a cake, or know how to build a kitchen for the Chef to bake many cakes? Do you know how to drill a well, or do you know how to advance the science of geology and engineering? Professor Winter continues with some additional issues regarding the capability and ability of staff within these classifications.

"When a corporation president whose experience is in finance succeeds one who started as a production engineer, the technique that the corporation is using changes even before the new president makes his first phone call: The same procedures are now embedded in a new frame of experience and analogy." pp. 6

and

"Knowing your job' in such an organization is partly a matter of having the necessary repertoire of actions, and partly knowing which actions go with which incoming signals. Each individual has some ability to perform a considerably larger set of actions than are called for in his job, but to the extent that "practice makes perfect" he will acquire superior skill in the ones actually called for. [The man who graduated as a chemical engineer becomes gradually specialized first in petroleum refining and then in those particular aspects of particular refining methods that are central to his job.] As emphasized previously, a large part of any individuals conceptual understanding of his job consists of images of other peoples' jobs." pp. 7

Within the producer there will be those that are practiced at drilling wells effectively and those that conduct research effectively due to the nature of their jobs and previous experiences. The cultivation of two separate and disparate "types" of employees is not necessarily new, it is necessary that these be clearly differentiated within the producers JOC and MSCC. The interactions and communications between employees and particularly between the two organizational constructs is answered here:

"Any single individuals conceptual understanding of the firm in its entirety is mainly at an extremely abstract and aggregative level." pp. 7

"By far the most important coordinating and organizing force is the invisible interlocking structure of mutually consistent expectations held by the various members of the organization: Each correctly expects that he will receive familiar signals from the others, and will respond in the familiar ways" pp. 7

These last quotes emphasizing the tacit interactions that are so prevalent in today's organizations. Dr. Winter then quotes directly from Schumpeter;

"It is easy to see that the characteristic of being in a higher rank, the function of superintendence in itself, constitutes no essential economic distinction. The mere circumstance that ranks one worker above another in the industrial organization, in a directing and superintending position, does not make his labor into something distinct. (p.20)"pp. 8

"But we see at once that the necessity of making decisions occurs in any work. No cobbler's apprentice can repair a shoe without making some resolutions and without deciding independently some question, however, small." (p. 20) pp.8

"... insofar as individuals in their economic conduct simply draw conclusions from known circumstances -- and that indeed is what we are here dealing with and what economics has always dealt with -- it is of no significance whether they are directing or directed. (p. 21)" pp.8

"The data which have governed the economic system in the past are familiar, and if they remain unchanged the system will continue in the same way. (p.22)" pp.8

Winter then comments on the difficulties of how these definitions are understood by the "worker" as classified as the "manager" and "entrepreneur".

"In short, the manager of a firm, when the economic system is in an equilibrium circular flow, is just another guy who knows his job in a firm full of people who know their jobs. The firm in equilibrium knows the technique it is using because it is using it, and has been for some time past." pp. 8

and

"Carrying out a new plan and acting according to a customary one are things as different as making a road and walking along it. (p.85)" pp. 9

Walking along this road will be difficult. The changes that are being realized and instilled within this software that we are developing will initially provide comfort to few. Change is a difficult and necessary action that is being driven, I suggest, by societies demands for energy, and peoples need to be "less" burdened by the demands of their work. I wrote extensively in the "Plurality" document about Dr. Anthony Giddens and Dr. Wanda Orlikowski and their structuration theory and model of structuration here. Review and familiarity with these theories will help to understand the role of change.

"The general emphasis in Schumpeter's work is, of course, on the entrepreneurial phenomenon in its most pure and dramatic form, where single individuals provide the leadership needed to bring about drastically new ways of doing things. But he does occasionally point out the essential continuity between these instances of dramatic innovation and the smallest sort of adaptation, to changing conditions." pp. 9

"Moral: Sometimes an innovation involving substantial technological novelty is much less costly and difficult than a change which, by standards external to the firm, is simple and commonplace. Viewed from inside the firm, technological novelty is only one among several reasons why an attempt to change techniques may involve large and unpredictable costs." pp. 10

Professor Winter moral provides some evidence that we are traveling the shortest route through these changes. I believe so. How much change the development and use of these systems brings about is unknown, however, the directness of our objectives helps in making the journey shorter, and potentially less painful. Professor Winter goes on in the document to note some principles of Neo-Schumpeterian Theory.

1) Contrary to the received theory of the firm, no sharp distinction can made between techniques known to the firm and those that are unknown. There is, instead, a quite continuous gradation from highly routine behaviour, to highly innovative behaviour. pp. 11

2) Relativity to existing routines: the only techniques which may appropriately be considered "perfectly known" to the firm are those it is actually performing, and has been performing repetitively. Furthermore, if we revert to the metaphor of Figures 3 and 4, the steepest part of the percent known curve is reached very quickly as the firm departs from its existing routines. Costs and uncertainties pile up rapidly for all but the most minor departures from well worn paths - even when the new direction is one already taken by other firms. pp. 11

3) A new method of production is a minor departure from an old one the the extent that (a) the repertories represented by the individuals currently in the firm contain the relevant skills, in roughly the right amounts, and (b) only minor "rewiring" is needed in order to create the interlocking system of signals and expectations that will evoke the appropriate actions at the appropriate time, (c) the relationship between the new technique and the old is correctly conceptualized by most individuals - so that planning for the change can go forward under largely correct premises as to who is capable of what. Similarity of list of ingredients may be a useful proxy variable for some of the considerations, but it is not a fundamental aspect of the closeness of one technique to another." pp. 11

4) Just as the fragmentation of knowledge in the firm makes innovation difficult and the consequences of attempted innovation unpredictable, nor does it tend to frustrate the economist who wants to predict the lines that innovation will take. The firm gradually "learns" a new method of production, vast numbers of details of the routines established will be determined by considerations that play no part in ordinary economic calculus, and may in addition be unknown to most of the firms managers, let alone to the observing economist. Not infrequently, decisions with quite major consequences for the firms future economic transaction will turn on such considerations. "Mere mangers" may behave predictably, entrepreneurs (and the organizations led by them) do not especially if the prognosticator directs his attention only to the economic influence on behavior. " pp. 12

Finally, as with Professor Langlois, I have abused the fair use of Professor Winter's copyright. As with Langlois, I am in contact with Professor Winter to determine what is required to make him whole under this phenomenal document. He leaves with a conclusion that resonates with my thinking of where we are headed too, and to a large extent why;

Thus a neo-Schumpeterian theory of the firm would be a historical theory in the sense that significant differences among firms would be regarded as historically determined; it would be a dynamic theory because only in the context of such a theory can the traditional problems of price theory be confronted anew, and, ideally, it would be probabilistic -- the existence of a multiplicity of unobservable factors that shape firm behavior would be explicitly recognized. Clearly, the program is an ambitious one, involving conceptual, theoretical and empirical questions of great difficulty. Success in building a new theoretical road can not be guaranteed, and the easier choice is to walk the old one. The question is how long are we prepared to content ourselves with a theory that is simple at the price of being simplistic. pp. 11

Photo Courtesy Kaley Davis

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Attention-Economy, Capabilities, Development, Winter, Research