I want to follow up quickly on my military command entry and concepts. The points that I want to establish today are:
- Allies = Other producers, or members of the joint operating committee, or service based organizations.
- Each army can be parsed into further classifications such as Navy, Marine, Army and Air Force.
- Each participant in the joint operating committee organizations may have several roles, several tasks and several "superiors" and / or underlings reporting to them from various organizations.
First up are allies. Many military commands expand beyond the scope of the current army. In WWII the entire allied forces were under the command of General Eisenhower. The English and Canadian militaries, although separate from the Americans, were engaged in similar exercises and were coordinated as one. This is the type of application that I think is needed to solve the current and prospective energy issues. Working for a company you may be seconded to work for several different joint operating committees that your company has an interest in. This military analogy is only a more formal method of recognizing the loosely coupled nature of the missions, tasks, physical resources, and personnel.
Second separate tasks or specialty roles are segregated between certain military disciplines. In this analogy the Navy, Airforce, Marines and Army are replaced by the Geological, Engineering, Administrative and Field disciplines. As with the individual disciplines the military chain of command remains in tact through the various disciplines. As an Army Captain would have superior rank to a Navy Private, the Senior Geologist would also have a recognized authority and superior rank over a junior Engineer.
Each worker within the oil and gas industry is therefore tasked in many different situations with different rank and roles. The producer that is his / her employer will have the opportunity and latitude to second each individual to work in any capacity and area that they are authorized in. This dynamic component being actively managed through the Genesys system identity management. Each worker in turn may have several different producers, which is almost a given, to be assigned tasks from.
Lastly I want to raise a point that dovetails nicely with what
Susan Hockfield, MIT President and Professor of Neuroscience has stated. Noting that the situation in energy was in a "Perfect Storm" and I quote.
"President Susan Hockfield unveils MIT's grand-scale initiative to confront the urgent challenge of our time: clean, affordable energy to power the world. In much the same way that MIT played a decisive role in the Allied victory in World War II, she calls for the Institute to muster its formidable forces to speed a transformation of the global energy landscape."
Note her tie in to the level of effort equivalent to MIT's in WWII. I share the concern and strongly recommend everyone to watch the MIT video of Professor Hockfield to understand better our concerns.
The analogy to the military has unfortunate connotations. However, it is by far the best manner of layering a component of command and control over the joint operating committee. The systems that we develop here are best suited for these interactions. So much of what we discussed here would be transparent and seamless to the user.
Nonetheless I think it is generally agreed that the hierarchy that is now in full command and control is
not the organizational structure that will marshal a solution to energies "perfect storm." After all they don't even believe there is a problem.
Technorati Tags: Genesys, Military Command, Innovation, Energy