McKinsey Strategy Series Part III, Tacit Interactions.

"Tacit interactions are becoming central to economic activity. Making those who undertake them more effective isn't like tweaking a production line."

This article states that tacit interactions, consisting of collaborative and complex problem solving, are the primary means of future economic value. The majority of these interactions are found in western based economies and are conducted by those that earn higher salaries. The article goes on to say;

"During the next decade, companies that make these activities - and the employees most involved in them - more productive will not only raise the top and bottom lines but also build talent based competitive advantages that rivals will find hard to match."

"But building these advantages won't be easy: companies must alter the way they craft strategies, design organizations, manage talent and leverage technology."

I particularly like that "Design Organizations" bit. It implies that the need and value of the hierarchy are last century. Today the technology exists to collaborate at a basic level. In the next ten years the development of collaborative applications will enable those firms that choose to increase these tacit interactions, with "competitive advantages that rivals will find hard to match."

McKinsey goes on to better define what is meant by tacit interactions noting "the searching, coordinating and monitoring activities required to exchange goods, services and information". The developed economies are finding the volume of tacit interactions are growing faster then in any other category or job description. Making up almost half of the resources in certain industries. The developing world is not far behind and have opportunities that could match the developed worlds pace in a very short period of time.

Automation of the business process, or transactional activities, does not augment the performance of tacit interactions. How a firm may increase those tacit interactions and increase performance is not well known or defined at this point.

"But that must now change. Executives will have to learn to innovate, and manage in era when tacit interactions dominate and drive performance."

Facilitating the people within your organization to increase tacit interactions requires the management to provide the tools for their people to do their jobs. In oil and gas, I would suggest that direct participation of all members of the joint operating committee, collaborating in a virtual environment is how I see the Genesys application being developed. Each engineer, geologist, administrator and developer are there to represent their companies interest in the area. Collectively the groups are able to collaborate and have the software support their thinking and decisions with tools that handle the business end of these interactions. For example, if it is determined that a sand frac is to be used on the well the following processes would be invoked;

• the contracting firm is chosen
• a purchase order is created
• a contract is made
• the invoicing and payment for those services are completed

all as a result of the decisions made by the joint operating committee (JOC). This frees them to conduct greater volumes of interactions and innovations that are necessary to meet the market demands for energy.

"Workers engage in a larger number of higher quality tacit interactions when organizational boundaries (such as hierarchies and silos) don't get in the way, when people trust each other and have the confidence to organize themselves, and when they have the tools to make better decisions and communicate quickly and easily."

McKinsey has conducted a survey of 8,000 companies and determined that certain sectors had higher levels of tacit interactions. Within each industry the number of tacit interactions was widely variable and appears to have a direct correlation to the overall performance of the firm! McKinsey goes on to say;

"The need to move forward is both substantial and urgent."

High levels of tacit interactions were consistently show to have built substantial competitive advantages. These advantages were difficult to be replicated by competitors as their "power lies in the collective company specific knowledge that emerges over time."

McKinsey goes on further to state that these require a;

"New Management Science" and "require changes in every facet of business, from hatching strategies, to organization, to managing talent, and leveraging IT."

Readers are encouraged to read the 200+ articles in the archives of this blog to see the manner in which this McKinsey Strategy Series dovetails with what has been suggested here for the oil and gas industry. The Genesys systems that will be developed with the joint operating committee as the organizational focus. Will enable high levels of tacit interactions and collaboration throughout the enterprise, the partnership in which the JOC is represented, and the industry as a whole. The what and how this is proposed to be done is documented in this blogs archives.

Consistent with the need to revisit all aspects of the firm, McKinsey believes the role and purpose of strategy and its development take on a higher importance then they do now. This becomes the critical task of senior management to provide the overall scope of interactions and their derivative innovations. This implying that innovations occur at the front lines of the business, not in the management ranks. The means that companies use to enhance the volume and value of tacit interactions is captured in the following;

"Tacit interactions reduce the importance of structure and elevate the importance of people and collaboration. Some of these changes are already underway. In many companies people now come together in project teams, address an issue, and disassemble to start the process again by joining other informal teams. In fact this approach is common in certain professional services and engineering firms, so their organizational charts rarely reflect what is really happening in them. Hierarchy busting has been a theme in the business press for years, but the pace of change has been slow and its effectiveness questionable."

The technology that companies will need to employ is fundamentally different from those used today. In addition to the enhanced communications, these technologies needs to be brought into context for the next ten years that McKinsey suggests these changes will occur. At this point I would assert the Genesys technical vision that I have documented here, here, here and here. This technical vision is necessary for these interactions to grow in predictable ways. Key will be the asynchronous process management and its ability to mirror the unpredictability of events as they occur. This is the real key of the entire discussion of these systems.

technorati tags: Plurality, Genesys, Petro-Canada, McKinsey,

McKinsey Strategy Series Part II, The Adaptable Corporation

"To survive corporations must execute in the present and adapt to the future."

This according to the author of this McKinsey article Eric D. Beinhocker. Click on the title to access this article, I highly recommend it's review. The author notes through research that two types of companies have evolved over the past century. High performance companies, which historically are unable to sustain their success vs. long term adaptors, companies that survive for long periods but do not perform well. The author provides research data that only a handful of organizations are able to achieve high performance and long term adaptation.

I have suggested this performance paradox is in play in the oil and gas industry today. And the solution to it is the hypothesis of the Plurality thesis underlying these blog entries. This solution involves identifying and supporting the joint operating committee. Building software that is consistent with the joint operating committee as the organizational focus. It is also my contention that this theory is the main point of conflict within the energy industry. To have McKinsey state explicit support for this type of thinking makes me realize that I have not pursued these ideas in vain.

The adaptability of a firm is dependent on three barriers, People, Structure and Resources.

"People, the price of experience"
The author notes that the "bias of over optimism can make organizational change efforts seem less urgent." I would add the confirmation bias, and as I noted in my Plurality thesis, both the motivational and cognitive paradox's. The confirmation bias enables people to see what they would like to see. The motivational paradox suggests that users lack the time and effort needed to learn new applications due to the overwhelming concern for though put. And the cognitive paradox notes that people tend to apply what they already know in coping with new situations.

Nonetheless each of these bias' and paradox point to the same issue. The installed base of management becomes a facilitator of execution, but also an albatross to adaptation to new situations.

"Structure, the risk of complexity catastrophe"
"As an organizations size and complexity grow, its degrees of freedom drop. The complexity of execution inevitably leads to inter-dependencies and organizational complexity, which in turn create the potential for gridlock."

I suggest that this implies that the performance of the firm would seriously degrade prior to the onset of gridlock. Is this what is occurring in oil and gas? Is the industry being challenged with new pricing and value metrics, facing an insurmountable change paradigm that management is unable to approach? If so it would be reasonable to assume that gridlock is right around the corner. It appears the majority of energy users demands are not being addressed or even recognized. If gridlock is the inevitable outcome as the author suggests, does this assume that we have to await its arrival before we take effective action? Or alternatively, will these software developments be driven by the users needs for a more effective and hence less timely way to do their jobs.

"Resources, the path to dependency."
"As managers search for complementary business processes and plans, over time those constrain the organization in its ability to expand its horizons."

"Creating an adaptive social architecture."

"Companies have two ways of overcoming these barriers. One is what Jack Welch called the "hardware" of an organization (its structure and processes), the other the "software" (norms and culture). The two sides must be consistent and mutually reinforcing to create a coherent social architecture."

It is suggested 3 approaches to overcome the gridlock and constraints:

1. Reduce the hierarchy.
   
2. Increase autonomy.
3. Encourage diversity.

However, addressing these hardware concerns provides only half the solution, you must also align the "software" of the organization.

"Organizational Software"
"Flatness, autonomy and diversity are diametrically opposed to the control, coordination and consistency that successful execution require. But the software of norms and culture can help organizations have their cake and execute it too."

The author notes the following 3 attributes are consistently seen in all high performing and adaptable organizations. These are as follows.

Co-operating norms.
As opposed to having the hierarchy enforce norms of trust, reciprocity and shared purpose. In this proposed solution, the joint operating committee operates at a level where the participants have control over these metrics. The focus is jointly shared by the participants collective motivation to optimize the investment.

Performing norms.
Replacing the role that senior management plays in pacing and setting performance requirements "by instilling norms that create strong expectations for individual performance." To offset senior managements centralized role of performance, individuals can be motivated to go the extra mile knowing success will be rewarded.

Innovating norms.
"Facts matter more that hierarchy" and "good ideas can come from anywhere." This blog is dedicated to the innovative producer. It is my assertion that the prices of energy commodities is a reallocation of the financial resources to support innovation. Innovation being a subset and mutually reinforcing cycle based on these underlying earth science and engineering disciplines.

Back to the original point that the author states. Companies need to execute in the present and adapt for, and to, the future. With the pace of change in the business community those that are able to effectively adapt will have the ongoing strategic capability to essentially continue on. Those that are unable to adapt are pursuing strategies of gridlock and quickly eroding competitive advantages.

I have stated many times in this blog that I do not see the structured hierarchy as being the means for the industry to adapt to these new realities. These realities are playing out and are addressed in this fine article. An article that provides an explicit solution that senior management must relieve some of their concerns for performance and place it in the hands of the front line. In the case of the oil and gas industry, the joint operating committee.

Part of the conflict that is prevalent in oil and gas companies is attributable to the "hardware" structure and processes of the organization are not aligned with the "software" components. The "software" being the culture and the norms of the organization are clearly based on the joint operating committee. Is it the legal, financial, operational decision making and cultural frameworks of the global oil and gas industry. Yet no company explicitly addresses this key organization method. This point is the source of the conflict in the industry and the source of its future adaptability.

If a user is faced with the change paradigm in this software development proposal, because it is consistent with the norms and culture of the industry the solution is very evident. The lack of cooperation between the joint operating committee and the hierarchy is the issue. The methods of management for the hierarchy have always conflicted with the joint operating committee. And over time no one questioned if this was the right direction. In other words, to adopt the joint operating committee will eliminate the majority of the conflict that is present in oil and gas administration and management.

Not pursuing this opportunity to develop these systems leaves the industry further behind where it should be in it's transition to adaptability. I can only assume at this point that the reason that these software developments are not being started is that the industry has attained that lofty point of gridlock.

technorati tags: Genesys, Plurality, McKinsey, Adaptability

A new McKinsey Strategy Series, Part I

The title of this entry will lead you to a series of McKinsey articles that provide some pertinent material for this blog. The majority of the focus of these articles is the transition from the technology induced forces that are active in business today. Within this series is a copy of the John Seely Brown and John Hagel III article "Creation Nets". I would point the key reason for this entry is to highlight how the article relates to this blog, as in this quote;

"Change is a constant in today's global business environment: new consumer preferences, innovative attackers, and technological discontinuities can challenge current leaders suddenly. This issue of McKinsey on Strategy examines three ways for companies to embrace the challenge of continual change. One is to reconcile the conflict between executing in the present and adapting to the future. Another is to embrace new knowledge and information trends that can make talented workers more effective and to look outside corporate boundaries for ideas, knowledge, and technology. The third is to counteract the common psychological biases that make executive hang on to failing businesses and products."

I can't think of a better summary of this blogs purpose and role. I have introduced significant change paradigms to the way that oil and gas companies are structured. I have noted that to change the structure requires that systems be built to define and support the new organizations, or as I have noted, SAP is the bureaucracy. And I have attracted significant resistance and as have stated before, and McKinsey is saying in this series, resistance is futile.

I will take each article and break them down into separate entries over the next few days. The first is the results of a Survey McKinsey conducted and their 10 trends.

An executive take on the global business concerns. A McKinsey Survey.

"Macroeconomics Trends"

"1) Centers of Economic activity will shift profoundly not just globally but also regionally."

Clearly China and India are having significant influence in the globalized economy. This trend will continue and bring with it the increase overall demands of energy. Underestimating the overall demand for energy is a fault of the energy producers. Thinking that prices are temporarily high is based more on past events then the globalized economy.

McKinsey notes that these trends are going to be with us for 20 years. The overall changes will be in concert with regional changes that are as dramatic. Noting that Europe and Asia may equalize in their economic size and influence.

"2) Public sector activities will balloon, making productivity gains essential."

This trend notes the demands in health care and other areas of the government will increase in the near future, and that increase has to be met through the enhanced productivity of the public sector. There simply won't be enough people to deal with the demand.

However, this trend is also in play in the oil and gas industry. Retirement of the brain trust will occur in the next 20 years. Methods of sustaining the reserve base requires more active science and engineering. These will have to be done as the fields get older and the targets smaller with less people then what are involved today.

"3) The consumer landscape will change and expand significantly."

Possibly intimating that the west will be the only one market of consumers, when India and China's middle classes continue to expand, the market for all products will be much stronger then the west is accustomed too. The energy sector is also directly affected by the consumer markets.

"Social and Environmental Trends"

"4) Technological connectivity will transform the way people live and interact."

Offices need to be designed to accommodate the new methods of completing work. The ability to conduct business anywhere, anytime is quickly becoming a reality. Telecommuting I think is a bad example of how this change will occur. Contact with a much larger population of workers and their regions will demand that the traditional methods of working needs to be considered.

"5) The battlefield for talent will shift. (Global labor and talent strategies)"

Dove-tailing with the technological connectivity trend, having people scattered in various regions will become commonplace. The ability to conduct operations where ever they are required is augmented by the capability to seek and source talent from remote areas.

"6) The roles and behavior of big business will come under increasingly sharp scrutiny."

Particularly in the energy industry. The Kyoto, CO2 emissions and general nature of the energy industry attracts those that have a strong environmental focus. Big business is also known to hog the lions share of consideration. The competitive and strategic advantages of size may become oriented to the smaller firms.

"7) Demand for natural resources will grow, as will the strain on the environment."

Well stated. McKinsey suggests that energy demand may grow by 50% in the next two decades. For me this certainly puts in perspective the scope and size of the problem in energy. Without energy, there is nothing. It is the lifeblood of an economy. If we intend to continue to develop these energy demands must be met. High energy prices are not a temporary pricing aberration from the conflict in the Middle East.

"Business and Industry Trends"

"8) New global industry structures are emerging."

Due to the proliferation of technologies and regulation like Sarbanes Oxeley, new business models are emerging. Here in Canada the development of private capital and trust conversions have dominated the energy sector. These business models were of limited use as little as 6 years ago.

"9) Management will go from art to science."

This trend is suggested as big businesses savior. The ability to continue on with size requires that the firm employ technologies throughout the organizations. Such that automated decision making replaces the current management structure of organizations. Read the McKinsey article if you have difficulty believing this.

"10) Ubiquitous access to information is changing the economics of knowledge."

This trend indicates to me that the real value in the future is intellectual property. Knowing is one thing, have access and authority to use many of the innovations in the future will be based on a completely different structure in industry. Who knew what and when will be more the deciding factor in creating value. Making licensing and publication more important elements of all businesses, but particularly energy.

I will continue on tomorrow with the next section of this series "The Adaptable Corporation."

technorati tags: Genesys, McKinsey, Trends, Energy, Change

Vaporware vs. Clean Slate

It could be argued that the focus of this blog is a software product that falls within the classification of vaporware. It could be argued this because that's what it is, vaporware. I would put some spin on the classic definition of vaporware and call this a clean slate approach to oil and gas systems. The situation that this "product" is in is difficult to define and therefore difficult to build without the express support of the oil and gas industry. This blog is communicating these concept far and wide and is finding its audience.

I am articulating a vision of what a new approach could do in the systems area. It certainly is vaporware as no group or company has ever approached the joint operating committee as the central organizational focus. How can I, as I am reduced to one individual, do all this work in order to make a viable system for the producers? The clean slate approach has to be communicated in the way that it could and should be built in order to accurately describe the features.

Two points that present the future difficulties I see in oil and gas systems. Partnership accounting and the Genesys technical vision that are the foundation of this solution. All these aspects of software systems have to be addressed and neither SAP, Oracle or IBM have a solution or vision for it.

To be more specific, the perspective of using the joint operating committee brings new and better ways of managing an oil and gas enterprise. From a systems point of view oil and gas has ignored and avoided the joint operating committee as it conflicts with the underlying purpose of the bureaucracy.

This project was originally proposed to the industry in 2004 as an $85 million software development project. As a producer I have to ask, isn't it more appropriate to keep your options open. What if SAP and Oracle continue to provide their current offerings, will those be adequate in the future?

Is there an expectation or belief that the bureaucracy and its use of last centuries technologies can hold a candle to this vision? These technologies and the forces of change in all areas of the economy have to be addressed. Oil prices are up almost 300% reallocating the financial resources to support innovation. Organizations are constrained in their speed and innovativeness due to the bureaucracy and its refusal to accept the joint operating committee as the explicit form of organization.

We have consistently seen successful companies that were able to integrate technology into their strategy and form strong competitive advantages. Companies such as HSBC. Homogenization on SAP is not a competitive strategy. I have now counted 12 calls to action that Harvard, Oxford Analytica, MIT, McKinsey, John Hagel III and John Seely Brown, Secretary Bodman, SEC Chairman Christopher Cox and a variety of others. Add to these calls the demands of the consumers. The time to act and put these software developments into play is now.

technorati tags: Call-to-Action, Vaporware, Technical-Vision, Genesys,

Sir John Browne On MIT Video.

The title to this entry will take you to the MIT video of Sir John Browne, Group Chief Executive BP p.l.c. An excellent speech entitled "The Purpose of Business".

Sir Browne developed his meaning or purpose of business as:

"We are fulfilling our purpose by supplying goods and services at a price people can afford and in a manner in which makes the activity sustainable."

Which is a fundamentally different then we are here to make money. In his speech Sir Browne documents the long lead times in oil and gas operations. Providing an understanding of the time and difficulties it takes to accomplish the development of oil and gas resources. Although it took 15 years to develop these assets, BP probably would not have been able to accomplish what they did in Azerbaijan in North America any easier! The scope and scale of this business is such that the lead times are ridiculously long.

Sir Browne talks at length about the time in which BP went into Azerbaijan in the early 1990's and developed their offshore resources. Offshore resources that probably would have still been untapped if it wasn't for the perseverance of Sir Browne and BP. To invest $15 billion over 15 years without seeing any revenue, to have the investment risked due to the political instability of the region shows the lengths that producers are having to take in order to access the commercial fields. As he notes, the supplies of oil and gas are concentrated in Russia, The Middle East and Africa.

Sir Browne talks about the things that he has to do for the future.

"And perhaps most important of all we need new ideas and knowledge, we need the advances in sciences which we as engineers can apply."

This is 100% consistent with the objectives of this blog and the use of the joint operating committee as the organizational focus. How can it be expected that the bureaucracies will be able to keep up to the demands of the changes in sciences. Layer on the political risks and operational difficulties and one can see the complexity of the business is systemic in all areas of operation. The bureaucracies are doing the job today, but at what speed. Is it fast enough to provide the market with their demands for energy?

The head of one of the largest oil and gas companies suggesting the same objective as discussed here. This has to be considered a call to action, and if we were counting that would make it 12.

technorati tags: Call-to-Action, Genesys, MIT, BP, Browne

A visit to the tarsands.

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman was in Calgary over the weekend. After a quick tour of the heavy oil facilities in Fort McMurray Secretary Bodman stated that;

"The U.S. is ready to work with Canada to remove roadblocks facing Alberta's oilsands sector."

and

"Suppliers of oil in the world have really lost control of the market."

Recall MIT highlighted a video of Secretary Bodman that I reviewed here. The question that seems to be answered by Secretary Bodman's visit is that yes the oil sands are a critical part of the U.S. energy security. Declaring the oil sands a "world resource" certainly puts the energy issues into context, and puts their development on a higher priority.

If it was only so easy. The problem comes in the area of infrastructure. There is not the basic necessities to support the current $100 billion in investment being made in Fort McMurray. The mayor of Fort McMurray has stated that the ability to sustain the current pace of development is in jeopardy. There are not enough people, 75,000 in Fort McMurray, to assess as a tax base to begin to even address the current issues, let alone the future oil sands developments. A pretty serious situation for any city to handle.

What we need Secretary Bodman is help with our problems here. There were indications that the kind of help that may be provided from the U.S. was the U.S. based refineries and pipelines be upgraded to handle the oilsands output. First that is not the problem, and secondly Alberta, irrespective of our leaders opinions of the situation, is not a hewer of wood and drawer of water. A few weeks ago I wrote how our leaders had hired a Texas based consultant to review why Alberta was unable to support the development of a $10 billion super refinery. Now is not the time for our leaders to suggest that foreign groups develop the infrastructure necessary for heavy oil development. Invest here in Alberta where the problems exist. Don't move the raw material into the final market, essentially ignoring Alberta as a second class citizen.

The areas that we need help is in the development of the appropriate civic infrastructure in Fort McMurray. What we need is engineering and knowledge on how to build the super refineries, pipelines and associated infrastructure for full development. Lets work together to solve the energy needs of the continent. That is what is possible and that is what we are ready to do with our very good friends, the U.S.

technorati tags: Call-to-Action, Secretary-Bodman, Heavy-Oil, Genesys

"SAP misses forecasts"

In a "surprise" announcement SAP's second quarter results were not as projected. Growth in revenues were down to 8% as opposed to the usual 15 - 17%. Market share was lost to Oracle.

All and all bad news from the number one business software maker. I would point out that they were scheduled to release their results next week, yet chose to slide them in under the door on Friday.

SAP was off in all analysts estimates. This indicating to me that something happened that was unexpectedly. I would like to think that something was companies beginning to turn away from the large software packages towards more natural forms of organization, and much more focused software.

technorati tags: Genesys, SAP, Quarterly

Idiots, a.k.a. Petro Canada shareholders.

What our favorite company is up to is a mystery even to themselves. As a shareholder I will be rabid when on July 27th this company issues its quarterly report. I thought that Petro Canada may surprise the market with an early release yesterday. An early release who's impact would be lessened by the lack of attention over the weekend. This is a particular vile and spineless tactic that only cowards would do. Maybe there is some hope for them yet?

On the topic of a July 27th release date. Does this late of date postpone the bad news to the absolute latest available date? After the full volume of the second quarter reports has died down, then we will hear the extent of the losses of Petro Canada.

When the noise of all the surprise announcements from all the other industries is in full song, Petro Canada will sneak a loosing quarterly under the door. This also on a day before the August long weekend. There is no hope what-so-ever for this firm.

technorati tags: Petro-Canada, Cowards, Genesys, Quarterly

This is where it starts.

Ever wonder how the revolution that I frequently speak of happens? How the people who diligently work in oil and gas begin to turn against their long term employer? How hard working diligent employees begin to percieve things with a jaded eye regarding their commitments to their employers? How they begin to take the opportunities, and apply them for themselves before they even consider their company?

Intel today announced it will layoff 1,000 managers or about 1 percent of its workforce, across the entire company as part of an effort to reduce bureaucracy and costs. Add 1,000 former soldiers against the revolution, now fighting for the revolution. The numbers of people that see and realize that Intel, being a prosperous company, maybe their comfortable days as the bureaucracy are numbered, and they need to do something about it. At least hedge their bets.

This is how and where it begins for the legions of bureaucracies that are plying their trade for the large corporation. Come on in the waters fine.

Technorati Tags: Genesys, Revolution, Lay-offs, Energy

Metcalfe's Law, social networks and Geologists.

The wikipedia entry explaining the law and its origins is available by clicking on the title of this entry. I had also commented on an MIT video that featured Dr. Robert Metcalfe. I find him to be one of the most understated and brilliant individuals of our time. I am writing about Metcalfe's law due to the triggering of something that was said on Fred Stutzman's web log yesterday. I highly recommend reading his entry and the referenced research of Odlyzko and Tilly before continuing. Stutzman is questioning the value of social networks and imputing there is more then just Metcalfe's law in play. I want to take this idea and apply it specifically to a network that should employ the benefits of Metcalfe's law. That is the earth scientists and engineers that are actively employed in the oil and gas industry.

I want to frame the context of my comments in this entry to the scientific domain of an oil and gas earth scientist or engineer. There has been an aberration in the method of these sciences development. Due to the commercial nature of the oil and gas industry these sciences have taken an era of the comical "Top Secret" or "Spy vs. Spy" type of interactions. Much of this stupid behavior and thinking is limited to the policies and procedures that are developed within the firm. This science may have also been restricted in its application due to the types of basin's and zones the firm were operating within. In other words from a very practical point of view the scientists within the firm may have become myopic in their approach due to their veil of secrecy, regions being exploited and geotechnical applications.

I know of one geologist with a master's degree, who over a thirty year career had made some of the most significant discoveries in the entire western sedimentary basin. Commercial fields that may have produced upwards of $10 billion in gas sales. I find it ironic and sad that this individual, who was the president of the firms that made these discoveries, could only point to one mention of any of his scientific discoveries. And this was in the academic field as a result of his master's thesis. What the %&*# has happened to the geological, and geophysical sciences? Has it become a secret backroom corporate holly grail? Where only certain people are ever exposed to the knowledge that underlies the firm? (Monty Python coconuts seems somewhat appropriate here.) Why haven't we seen many of the papers and thinking that is the underlying value of the entire industry? Certainly the individuals who have been able to apply the science have been able to attain significant monetary success, but they are not credited with their theories and the developments and benefits that they brought to the sciences. And far worse these ideas remain secrets that are locked away where no one else can benefit from them! Applying Metcalfe's law this is a network of 1. Which derives the benefit of 1 to the power of 1. Sad ridiculous and maybe a crime. "What I know is what I know and I will not let anyone know what I know because then they will take it from me?" This is pathetic thinking for an individual that has been educated in the scientific disciplines. It is also pathetic that this is not being actively addressed and corrected today by some new thinking individual who publishes their thoughts in a blog. Publishing is the only manner of securing your intellectual property. Use technorati to document what you know and when you know it. And let the rest of the world benefit and build from the ideas.

Off the soap box now and talking again about the network effect of Metcalfe's law. Can the earth sciences and engineering disciplines benefit from some thinking that is logarithmically better in its speed and quality. What if workers in oil and gas openly published their earth science theories and thoughts. Could we then move the entire industry to a fundamentally new basis of value. Could these scientists have the benefit of knowing that their thoughts were unique and valuable to society, and reap the monetary benefits. To not publish is to deny what is yours to give.

Somebody somewhere has to start a social network for the earth scientists to start thinking together. (I can only assume that the oil and gas companies are going to be unhappy with me again.)

Technorati Tags: Copyright, Metcalfe's-Law, Innovation, Energy