Where we're at in 624 words.

The following is a summary of where all the time went. September 2003 - May 2004. The beginnings of the People, Ideas & Objects software development project were based on my Master's Thesis. My hypothesis asked if the oil and gas bureaucracy had become redundant and if so; would the Joint Operating Committee, augmented with today's Information Technologies, provide for a more innovative footing of the oil and gas industry?

The findings of this research confirmed the hypothesis. If a producer was to move the compliance and governance of the bureaucracy to the legal, financial, cultural and operational decision making frameworks of the JOC, a greater alignment of these frameworks would provide for far greater levels of innovation. Additionally it was determined that systems define the organization. In today's business, any change in the organization must firstly be planned and software systems developed to identify and support the organization. Otherwise the organization will be relegated to manual systems.

May 2004 - December 2007 Comprehensive research was undertaken to determine; if the JOC was adopted as the key organizational construct of the oil and gas producer, what would an ERP styled system look like.

January 2008 to July 2008 a "Draft Specification" was published providing an overall vision of the systems modules. The system currently has eleven modules defined in the "Draft Specification" as follows:

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

One of the main reasons the People, Ideas & Objects software application can work is that when embedded in a transaction based collaborative environment, there is no need for the people to physically move from JOC to JOC. Bridging the physical distance between the participants in the JOC is enabled in the virtual transaction based environment of the application, which in turn enables the re-organization.

Since July 2008 I have attempted to make the case that the current bureaucracies are indeed failing and are only operating in managements own best interests to better themselves. Showing that declining reserves and production are leading to lower profits and even losses. Costs are escalating incrementally as project targets slip. Systemically using derivatives on the commodities they produce to prove they have no idea or understanding of what business they are in. During all this time, management have been rewarding themselves for this performance with multi-billion dollar stock option compensation.

August 2008 saw the commencement of the discovery process on how the funding of this project can proceed. Sourcing revenue for this project from the disenchanted oil and gas investor is the most likely candidate for starting the revenue. Unlike management's fleecing of Bear Stearn, Fannie, Freddie and Lehman shareholders, the People, Ideas & Objects software development project provides the oil and gas shareholder with options.

The purpose of this project is to build an environment where the oil and gas investor can produce their oil and gas in the most profitable manner. This is about enabling the industry to evolve at the speed of the underlying sciences. Based on this body of intellectual property, where the software is hosted in the "cloud," and the community of users provide the services to the producers in their own service based offerings.

This software development project needs Users (Oil and Gas workers of all professions), Developers, Project Managers and Oil and Gas Investors. The oil and gas investor has a vested interest in sponsoring this project and providing the funds necessary to build the system. This system provides the investor with an alternative organizational structure to have their oil and gas assets managed by this community. Managed in the most profitable manner where they are able to effectively control their assets in their best interest.

Technorati Tags: People's Summary Sponsors Value-Proposition

Shareholder beware.

This current financial meltdown is not an under regulation problem, but an over regulation problem. Although I have issue with the expectation that markets will fix everything, and this may be a symptom of that expectation, the real culprit is the separation of ownership and control within a business environment.

I pulled this reference from the www.adamsmith.org website.

...negligence and profusion resulting from
the separation of ownership and control in a business enterprise.

The author of the article that made that quote brings up an interesting point in the subsequent debate. And that is, the reference to the separation of ownership and control being the Federal Reserve and Treasury Departments recent actions to companies on Wall Street. The Fed and Treasury are certainly not accountable to the shareholders. He makes the following point as well.

There’s a pattern here. The biggest shocks to the financial system have all come from stock market companies. By contrast, hedge funds, which many expected to cause trouble, have been innocent bystanders. These are, generally, owned as private partnerships. So one form of ownership has caused a crisis, and another hasn’t.

To add insult to injury, the Fed and Treasury are trying to stop this immovable, and natural force. This is a Republican administration that is based in the Reagan doctrine. Recall that he stated the nine scariest words in the English language are;

We are from the government, we're here to help.

In Saturday's Wall Street Journal, Amity Shlaes says we are following the same failed steps that were taken in the lead up to the great depression. Her article matches the players and their roles between 1929 and today with frightening similarities. Do we really believe that the government is going to be able to solve these business problems?

Within the oil and gas industry we have a different type of problem. The shareholders are being fleeced by the management. Why, because the rules and regulations that are designed to protect the shareholders limit their actions to a few minutes each year. That also assumes that the investor can rally the other shareholders to fight the management. A proxy scenario that is played out in only the most extreme cases.

I have written many times about Professor Carlota Perez. Her analysis shows the results of seven severe global changes in economics. These have occurred over the past three hundred years with the last one being 1929's. She has identified the many stages that an economy progresses, and describes in historical detail the scope and scale of the changes. In a nutshell she has detailed the process of how the old industries die off and the new industries take over as the key in the economy. Her prescription is very accurately being played out on the today's newspaper headlines .

In each case Professor Perez details the important role that financial capital fills in these transitions. Overbuilding of the infrastructure of the next great surge is something that has systemically happened. Whether it was roads, canals, shipping or in today's instance the Information and Communication Technologies. (ICT)

This is a healthy period and one that should be embraced. What the old economy will be doing is falling flat on its face. The scope of the failure according to Perez has to be significant enough "that people know the old ways no longer work". That is the only motivation that people will have to move to the new economy. Financial capital then assumes a much less significant role in the economy. This eventually leads to the crashes and other "meltdowns" that are also systemic with her data and analysis. Product capital, something that barely exists in my opinion, rises from the ashes of the financial capital.

It is my opinion that we have another problem on top of the ones that are being discussed here. That is the management of organizations, companies and governments are invincible. That is to mean they are employed in the act of solving problems for the most part. Lets call this the new oxymoron, the art of management. It may be up to half the people in the U.S. economy are employed in a role of overseer. They can't help themselves but to manage their way out of a crisis. I don't think this was necessarily the case in 1929 and prior economic collapses. At some point, however, they will realize the fact that no one can stop these forces and they are not necessarily bad, and get on with the prosperous future that is in front of the us. Schumpeter calls it creative destruction for a reason. 

Charlie Rose hosted an interview with AIG's former head Hank Greenberg. As a significant shareholder in AIG he feels he should have a seat at the table when discussing any future firm plans. In the video, Greenberg is completely in the dark in terms of how the company is going to be affected, and no one has returned his calls. Amazing. This is not capitalism. The problem here is that we are talking about Hank Greenberg. If he can't get anyone to call him, why would any one call the smaller investors?

The attitude of the Fed and Treasury may have assumed that the time for Hank Greenberg to act was long ago. That he didn't act in a timely manner was his problem, and he should bear the consequences of his inaction. I think that the love affair that Hank had with Elliott Spitzer was probably what distracted him from fulfilling his rightful duties. Imagine that an individual run out of their business for innuendo and rumors from a dirty government official.

Lets be honest here, western society has believed the shareholder was passive. That management were best able to manage the company. These statements, from both perspectives, are now seen as folly. The investor can not sit idly by uninvolved. We all know it doesn't work that way. And more regulations on the management only entrench their useless activities deeper within their untouchable domain. Has anyone heard a single complaint about Sarbane's Oxley lately?

To my point in this web log. The oil and gas investor can see clearly how they are being treated, and their prospects of future treatment in this environment. They are also the leaders in this capital intensive industry. The money has to go first to make things happen.

Here is what I recommend for the oil and gas investor to do in the next five years.

• Start funding this project.

Our budget for this year is only $180,000 and that can be shared amongst many investors.

• Get out of the oil and gas companies that you own now.

Oil and gas has to transition from the old era to this new era. Picking the winners and losers is impossible. People, Ideas & Objects is the new era of how an investor can manage their investments. Actively, much like a hedge fund that was discussed earlier.

• Start picking off some of the properties in oil and gas that will be offered for sale.

The investors lack of investment in these oil and gas firms will cause the financial's to deteriorate. Particularly with the credit tightening that is now ongoing. The energy companies are going to have shortages of cash and the properties will need to be sold to maintain operations.

• Get involved in actively managing these assets by getting involved in the People, Ideas & Objects ERP system and community.
  

Don't let what is happening to Hank Greenberg happen to you. At the very least you should hedge your bets, join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Funding Leadership Market Proposal

Google Search Appliance

Google recently did a presentation about their current version of the Google Search Appliance. As with my recent post of how documents work in Google Docs and how I see similar behavior in the proposed People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification. I will be adding the key points of Google Search Appliance into the Draft Specification.

Some of the key technologies in Google Search Appliance put it in the must have category of any firm. For this project that would include project managers, users, developers, producers and Joint Operating Committees (JOC's). It solves the key concern that I have about enterprise search, that being the right access to the right data.

I recommend that all readers view the entire presentation. It highlights far too many things that are of significant value to this software development project. A few of those highlights are listed here;

• Kerboras based User queries - makes queries recognize the scope of the users authority.
• Single Sign On (SSO) - enables the user to maintain high level security without having to constantly log in.
• Customized authority and authentication - able to build off the Security & Access control module of the People, Ideas & Objects application.
  
• Domain Specific Queries - enables the user to request data from People, Ideas & Objects and only the information within their domain will show in the search results.
• Document level security.
• Key match search provides authority attributes.
  
• Databases (MySQL) - can include data elements from the database as well.
• Related Web Search - search results can include web based results.
• Collections are indexes from Google and are unlimited technically, but overuse has a performance hit. Provides the ability to focus search in specific areas of interest.
• Customizable "front-end" or search page.

With this search capability users will be able to access their data from anywhere and at anytime. Yet provide the JOC and producer companies the user works for with a trusted source of search technologies.

Keeping on the topic of Google and their technologies. The addition of multiple languages to this application presents a very difficult technological issue. I have set up two projects in the private wiki; the first project will address the scope of the language related technical issue. The other project is to determine if Google's Language API can provide the translation from English to the other languages that may be used by users in the People, Ideas & Objects application.

Technorati Tags: People's Google Language Development

How will Oracle and SAP approach the oil and gas market.

Oracle and SAP have their systems installed in many of the top oil and gas producers. Encana for example uses a variety of Oracle products, which I believe include J.D. Edwards and PeopleSoft. Makes you wonder why are they're hiring developers to build their OilCo and GasCo consolidation software?

One of the critical competitive advantages that we currently have in People, Ideas & Objects is that we are not constrained by the existence of operational software code, and customers operating from that code base. Moving in the direction that the users want and need have no consequences in terms of time, money or effort. Change is dynamic at the beginning of the project and therefore, it is important to consider as much as possible for inclusion into the preliminary through to final specifications.

SAP and Oracle have to look at the oil and gas marketplace with the idea that they have successfully sold the application in the marketplace. What is their upside in terms of new revenue sources? What type of application can be sold into the market, and specifically how would it compete with this People, Ideas & Objects user driven initiative? What mode of organizational structure would be used to model the innovative oil and gas producer? I can only think of the bureaucracy and the Joint Operating Committee. Since this project holds the intellectual property of using the JOC, they are precluded from competing on that basis. SAP as I have said many times before, is the bureaucracy. And therefore any justification to replace Oracle or SAP's current software applications would need to address how it's not a waste of time, money and effort.

Please note this decision to replace the application is at the discretion of the users of this project. If they decide tomorrow to scrap the project and start anew that is fine with People, Ideas & Objects. We are not selling a software application over and over again. Our revenue is based on our Intellectual Property, the cost of developing the application and a percentage for maintaining and profiting from our development capabilities. The costs of this development is therefor substantially lower then the aggregate revenue streams of our competition. 

Which I guess that leaves two options for a producer that wants to shed their bureaucratic ways. Either pool the industries financial resources in the People, Ideas & Objects application, or hire a few hundred developers each to do some custom in-house work. The latter probably makes the least sense when we consider the current bureaucracies are faced with declining reserves and production, increasing debt loads, quarterly losses and retirements of the brain-trust. But then I am rather biased about that.

This project has to find new sources of money and leadership to fill-in the many voids of the overall vision. If you know of someone who could help to financially support this project please do what you can to bring their attention to this. Ninety-five percent of the ownership of the oil and gas industry is held by individuals. Individuals who are the investors, users and developers of the People, Ideas & Object application. Join me here and lets build this software.

The PayPal button on this website will gladly take donations that can further us along in the road we are headed. Even if you can only contribute $10.00 we will be that much further ahead. Join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Ideas IP Development

McKinsey 2008 Web 2.0 Survey

Article 39 of relevant McKinsey articles sees the publication of their annual survey of "Web 2.0" technologies in business. What is clearly evident in this survey, is an enhanced level of interaction between suppliers, vendors and producers in the oil and gas industry, is enabled by Web 2.0 technologies.

A fundamental component of the Draft Specification is the redefinition of the boundaries between the firm and market. One of the objectives is that oil and gas producers must rely more heavily on the markets to better anticipate their needs. This is an extension of the logic that a producer researching and developing their own drill bits is wrong headed, and would be a comprehensively uncompetitive behavior. The competitive advantages of an oil and gas producer resides in their land base; and knowing what earth science and engineering capabilities exist within their organization, and joint interest partners organizations.

Building redundant duplications of capabilities in each silo'd company presents the industry with a critical shortage of these key human resources. If, based on the Joint Operating Committee's (JOC's) established partnerships, the producers pooled their resources, the unnecessary duplication of capabilities within each firm is eliminated. Releasing these resources to address the growing science and engineering demanded within each barrel of oil. This pooling also addresses the potential issues raised around the retirement of the industry brain trust.

Companies report that they are using Web 2.0 both within and outside their walls -- to forge tighter links with customers and suppliers and to engage employees more successfully. p. 1

How the Web 2.0 technologies enable the JOC and the producers that represent them is not so much of a technology issue as it is an organizational issue. The unique characteristics of the energy producer have always been addressed through the JOC; whereas the compliance and governance of the hierarchy has monopolized the attention of software vendors. This no longer needs to be the requirement.

I much prefer the term Enterprise 2.0, Web Services or Service Oriented Architectures (SOA) then Web 2.0. The intent is the same. However, I feel Web 2.0 addresses the consumer more then business. Call it what you will, according to McKinsey's survey companies are beginning to respond to the potential competitive benefits.

However, fundamental changes are beginning to take place among the satisfied companies as a result of their ambitious use of Web 2.0. These companies are not only using more technologies but also leveraging them to change management practices and organizational structures. p. 2

This is reflected in the attitudes towards Web 2.0 technologies. Writing a blog was perceived as a waste of time, now blogging is becoming more main stream as a form of idea communication. According to McKinsey's survey these technologies will begin to involve transactions. This may seem far fetched today, however, there really is no technical difference in a web enabled ERP system such as People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification and one that Oracle or SAP sell. The differences are not IT related in nature, but our choice of which organization we define and support.

Following last year's pattern, Web Services (software that makes it easier to exchange information and conduct transactions) remains the technology with the highest level of use among respondents across all regions. Respondents also rate Web services as the most important tool. p. 4

The next step will be the innovative application of these technologies in the various primary industries. This is the primary focus of the People, Ideas & Objects application modules. Modules that enable innovation and solve the problems the industry faces today.

Innovation. Successful companies already use Web 2.0 for business applications such as communicating with customers and suppliers; soon they may use it to drive innovation. p. 10

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

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Survey Innovation

JavaScript and Java Applets.

I have expressed my concerns about exposing this applications client side to any JavaScript. JavaScript is unable to carry the freight in such an application as this software development project will demand. JavaScript has traditionally been buggy, non-standard and too functional for its own good. I have changed my mind about potentially using JavaScript on the client. The reason for this change is that I know we may not get there from here. Where there is, is accurately captured in this video.

This video discusses the effect of using small amounts of JavaScript in a browser window, or in our case a Java Web Start application. The upgrade is primarily to do with Java and its Applets, not JavaScript. These changes in Java will be what sets off an entire new revolution of client-side computing. With the applications architecture being Java and JavaFX the users of this application will be provided with an elaborate interface that will establish new paradigm's and methods of user interaction. I think this is just the beginning. Many different directions can be taken on the client side as a result of these technologies and we will see robust, stable and secure client side processing that befits the users of this application. It is therefore time to adjust our thinking regarding JavaScript.

Up until now we had incorporated Google's Widget Toolkit (GWT) to render the necessary JavaScript code from Java. No actual JavaScript was to be hand written and that provides an acceptable level of JavaScript associated risk in the People, Ideas & Objects application. Does leaving the coding of this functionality through GWT still provide us with the types of technologies that are demonstrated in the video? I don't know, as the video was using some technologies that are not generally available today, but the presenter was talking throughout about a Java to JavaScript bridge. Possibly Sun has incorporated many of the same technologies as Google's GWT. Either way these new ideas are employing JavaScript in a very small role that has very limited actual work. (Messaging)

I feel reasonably safe with these technologies such that I am not willing to give up on any of the upside of the associated benefits.

Technorati Tags: People's Architecture Development Video

Coase, the Nature of the Firm, 1937

Professor Ronald H. Coase, a Nobel Laureate in Economics has been referenced in many of the papers that Professor Richard Langlois has written. Since Professor Langlois' work has provided the bulk of the thinking that went into the Draft Specification, I thought it would be worthwhile to go back and look at some of the papers that Professor Langlois has cited as influences in his papers.

The paper that we are reviewing is the Nature of the Firm which Coase wrote in 1937 and captures much of the thinking that won him the Nobel Prize. There is a follow on article to this entitled New Institution Economics written in 1998. I acquired both papers through JSTOR and they are available there to those with access.

Langlois' key attributes in the Draft Specification were the defining of the boundaries of the firm and market, and transaction cost economics, particularly "dynamic transaction costs" which he defines as;

The need to bring otherwise decentralized knowledge together & co-ordinate it especially in circumstances involving learning and the generation of new productive knowledge. Langlois

A Joint Operating Committee (JOC) is represented by many different producers. If we are to eliminate the excess demand for human resources that exists in the marketplace today, and is projected to become much worse with the pending retirement of the brain trust. Then we need to eliminate the redundant duplication that exists from each producer aspiring to conduct all the operations that are necessary within their organization themselves. Specifically what resources are available if we pool the resources of the working interest partners in the JOC.

Implementing the Military Command & Control metaphor that assigns the roles and responsibilities across the organizations in much the same manner that NATO does; the JOC adopts a governance structure that is workable. This is particularly important as the expected volume of engineering and earth science applied to each barrel of oil is increasing each year and is the reason the bureaucracies costs are escalating and their reserves are declining. Based on Langlois dynamic transaction costs, there will be additional costs associated with these activities.

This post being a follow on post of our review of Professor Sidney Winters. In which the definitions of what is necessary for a firm to approach both the short and long term horizons of the business environment. A clear separation of the types of work being conducted on either side of that dividing line or boundary between the firm and market. Coase notes the following with regard to the topic at hand;

Our task is to attempt to discover why a firm emerges at all in a specialized exchange economy. p. 390

I wish to highlight an area of conflict that currently exists in the industry. That is the capital and operating cost escalation in oil and gas is attributable to the "greed" of field suppliers and contractors that want to earn their due when the sun is shining. This may be the case, however, I would suggest that the companies inability to work with the suppliers and treat them as extensions of their organization is the root cause of this cost escalation. The people in the field should be extensions of the producers organizations, they are how the firms can acquire the necessary "local knowledge", by using the market.

The main reason why it is probable to establish a firm would seem to be that there is a cost with using the price mechanism. The most obvious cost of "organizing" production through the price mechanism is that of discovering what the relevant prices are. The costs of negotiating and concluding a separate contract for each exchange transaction which takes place on a market must also be taken into account. pp. 390 - 391

Lets take a look at the business of the metaphorical widget factory. Most of the widgets are manufactured or assembled in-house with staff that are applied efficiently on the basis of their specialization. Their domain of operation is essentially contained within their four walls and they are able to see and realize the obvious and not so obvious. This is somewhat of a static situation throughout the term of the life of the firm. Oil and gas operations are scattered. They are short term operations based on some form of geological theory that is being applied, tested, and some of the time, rehabilitated. The daily production of oil or gas is a 24 hour operation that provides strong cash flow and earnings with little if any human supervision during the production period.

The oil and gas business would seem based on this description to employ the resources of the market on a contract basis using the full extent and value of the price system. To do otherwise is beyond the scope and scale of the producer company. These costs are inherent in the business and as such we should optimize the energy firm in the use and processing of transaction costs. These elements of the Draft Specification are detailed in the Accounting Voucher module.

Adam Smith explained that the productivity of the economic system depends on specialization (he says the division of labor), but specialization is only possible if there is exchange-and the lower the costs of exchange (transaction costs if you will), the more specialization there will be and the greater the productivity of the system. p. 73

All economic growth is achieved through greater levels of specialization. That is a known fact. For oil and gas producers their enhanced productivity will arise as a result of the effectiveness of implementing this higher level specialization. A tall order when the activity levels and scope of the sciences being applied to producing properties are so high. This is the point that I am trying to make. If an enhanced level of productivity is to be achieved in the industry, the field operations will need to implement and host a greater division of labor. That also applies to the JOC, where the pooling of resources from the participant firms will increase the division of labor at that level.

I now want to focus on the group of individuals that make up the long term view of the operations group contained within an oil and gas firm. These people are actively looking for better ways in which to conduct their operation. Focused on the sciences, they innovate and develop the means and methods for enhanced oil and gas exploration and production. Using the market to implement these, the firm needs to be actively involved in the business development of that market. Such that a speed and innovativeness is attained based on the understanding of the underlying sciences.

How the Draft Specification deals with this particular issue is through the publication of generic data of the producers planned capital expenditures. This interface of the Petroleum Lease Marketplace provides the market with an understanding of what and where the industry will need to be doing in order to achieve their goals. Suppliers are then able to better read what it is that they are expected on a long term basis. Producers on the other hand are able to see through the Research & Capabilities module those ideas of interest. And then engage the marketplace to develop and build those capabilities.

The alternative is to continue along in the muddling sort of way that has brought us to this point. The companies today telling the market place that it is greedy is only making the situation worse. The companies expect the market to read their mind and build the capabilities for the future. To continue to have this being done on speculation is going to further retard the growth of the industry. Holding 100% of the industries revenues and doling them out as dog bones provides a lot of power to the industry. With that power comes the responsibility to effectively ensure that the markets they use are operating correctly. It is my opinion they are not.

It is commonly said, and it may be true, that the new institutional economics started with my article, "The Nature of the Firm" (1937) with its explicit introduction of transaction costs into economic analysis. p. 72

How this of course is implemented is through detailed software applications built specifically for this purpose. This is one of the many opportunities available to the industry from this software development project. Some may say that I am reaching here in terms of the ambition of this module, I believe Coase supports these with the following comments.

In effect it is the institutions that govern the performance of an economy, and it is this that gives the "new institutional economics" its importance for economists. p. 73

and

Economists often take pride in the fact that Charles Darwin came to his theory of evolution as a result of reading Thomas Malthus and Adam Smith. But contrast the developments in biology since Darwin with what has happened in economics since Adam Smith. Biology has been transformed. Biologists now have a detailed understanding of the complicated structures that govern the functioning of living organisms. I believe that one day we will have similar triumphs in economics. But it will not be easy. Even if we start with the relatively simple analysis of "The Nature of the Firm," discovering the factors that determine the relative costs of coordination by management within the firm or by transactions on the market is no simple task. p. 73

Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) are not the solution as much as the means in which new organizational structures are able to resolve and provide these features.

This is what I said in a lecture published in Lives of the Laureates (Coase, 1995 p. 245): "The costs of coordination within a firm and the level of transaction costs that it faces are affected by its ability to purchase inputs from other firms, and their ability to supply these inputs depends in part on their costs of coordination and the level of transaction costs that they face which are similarly affected by what these are in still other firms. What we are dealing with is a complex interrelated structure." Add to this the influence of the laws, of the social system, and of the culture, as well as the effects of technological changes such as the digital revolution with its dramatic fall in information costs (a major component of transaction costs), and you have a complicated set of interrelationships the nature of which will take much dedicated work over a long period to discover. But when this is done, all of economics will have become what we now call "the new institutional economics." p. 73

The alternative is to continue doing the same things with the same organizations with the same results.

This change will not come about, in my view, as a result of a frontal assault on mainstream economics. It will come as a result of economists in branches of economics adopting a different approach, as indeed is already happening. When the majority of economists have changed, mainstream economists will acknowledge the importance of examining the economic systems in this way and will claim that they knew it all along. pp. 73 - 74

Please join me here for this difficult but worthwhile task.

Technorati Tags: People's Langlois Governance Voucher Innovation

Edith Penrose on the development of oil and gas.

I am reviewing a paper that was written by Professor Edith Penrose. The title of the paper is "Limits to the Growth and Size of Firms." This paper was published in The American Economic Review in May of 1955. Her papers are available through the various Journals that published the articles. Unlike most of the current research these papers are accessible only through paid services. In this case I was able to download them from JSTOR.

While I was at JSTOR, I ran across two very interesting Penrose papers regarding the oil and gas industry. I highly recommend that you pull down a copy and read them both. They reflect the dynamics of oil and gas pricing on a global basis.

The two documents are entitled:

Middle East Oil: The International Distribution of Profits and Income Taxes. Published in Economica, New Series, August 1960

and

Importance in the World Oil Industry. Published in International Affairs January 1979

Anyone suggesting that our current high energy prices are a result of speculation should put these two papers on their must read list. The depth of analysis, the lucid and objective discussion of how energy prices were established during the industries "easy era" is impressive.

One of the key conclusions she makes is that OPEC was a necessary mechanism for the market to function correctly. It is difficult to recall the days when the abundance of energy conspired to ruin the business at any moment. Articles like the 1999 Economist cover story "Drowning in oil" when commodities were in surplus, just created more long term problems for the industry.

Although written in the early 1960's and late 1970's Professor Penrose' articles show the complexity of the information inherent in the pricing of oil. The articles also intimate the power that OPEC has in these times of reduced supply and very high demand, however, this week saw the Saudi's somewhat turn their back on the cartel.

Technorati Tags: People's Energy Reference

Professor Robert Shiller

"Shiller Sees Subprime Crisis as Opportunity for Change"

Bloomberg has some of the best PodCasts about the economy. Particularly Tom Keene's "On the Economy" is a must for everyone that participates in the economy. The guests provide the show with depth and analysis that I don't think is available anywhere else. Truly original and informative, make sure you also check out the "Best of On the Economy". This particular PodCast is with Professor Shiller.

Professor Shiller's fame is partly attributable to the S & P / Case - Shiller housing index that is widely quoted today. He is also the Arthur M. Okun Professor of economics at Yale University. (Check out his new book "The Subprime Solution".) What he sees in this current economic malaise is

...an opportunity for change, for fundamental change. Where the financial crisis is a systemic mis-allocation of capital, and we can do better. We want to go forward, we can think creatively.

Obviously he is talking about the sub-prime and housing related issues, but I think in his comments we see the same information that Professor Carlota Perez has been suggesting for the last few years.

Perez has researched the previous economic cycles and has mapped out how the long wave economic cycles impact the day-to-day economy. She has suggested that due to Information & Communication Technologies (ICT) we have a 25 to 30 year economic up-swing ahead of us. In her writings she stated that the .com meltdown was not substantial enough to mark the end of the previous long range cycle. (Autos) Projecting that a housing bubble may be the beginning of the end of the old economic cycle and the commencement of the ICT based economic upswing. A projection she made before 2004.

Perez has also claimed, and is confirming Shiller's assertion, that the financial capital markets should be re-regulated. And she suggests that product capital markets will be the new drivers of value. Anyone looked at Apple's stock recently? Shiller takes this one step further and suggests that our reliance on the Efficient Market Hypothesis is flawed. Neither of these professors is suggesting the end of markets. What they are saying is that it is necessary to have broader regulations to ensure leverage is not enabled again through innovations in the financial marketplace. Both Professors are quick to point out that highly engineered financial innovations are good and necessary, but regulations are needed to stop the over the top leveraging of wealth.

These ideas resonate with me, and as a result Professor Perez' theories have made a substantial contribution to the Draft Specification. But are they right? And here we see the beginnings of the resolution to the decline of the auto phase, and the beginning of the ICT stage in the current productivity numbers.

We are rocking, economically that is. The annual U.S. productivity was revised upwards to 4.3% in the second quarter of 2008. Based on most of the comments on that page it is assumed that this level of productivity growth is due to people being told to do more with less. I think they show that ICT is having a substantial, and predicted, effect on the economy. Perez suggests these "golden age" attributes are systemic through the various economic cycles that she has studied.

In terms of re-regulation Professor Shiller points out the Blueprint that Treasury Secretary Paulson published in March 2008. Therefore all the parts are in place for this golden age to begin and carry us for the 25 - 30 year life.

A lot is happening in the economic world. Opportunities are difficult to focus on, however, I think we have to look beyond the current and looming train wrecks to see where the world is heading. These two Professors help to identify the direction. A direction where People, Ideas & Objects is moving to. If you wish to participate in this development please email me. If you wish to donate please use the PayPal button in the left hand column.

Technorati Tags: People's Perez Change Books

Professor Sidney Winter, Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities. June 2002

I have seen first hand the effects of blogs and wiki's in the development of this software application. These two technologies are transmitting the ideas contained within these pages throughout the world to like minded individuals. The effectiveness of this communication is intoxicating. Everyone that has an interest in this project can be metaphorically and literally on the same page. The communication of these ideas in any other medium would be impossible.

I feel my effectiveness and productivity are enhanced substantially by so many people reading and learning so much about these ideas. The beauty of these technologies is that the people who join this community will immediately find their effectiveness and productivity enhanced as well. As individuals join the community they're able to contribute and build off these ideas. Which brings us to this article by Professor Winter.

Professor Winter has been a valuable contributor to the establishment of the ideas contained in this development project. The label on this web log has 10 entries attributed to his papers. Winter's special area of expertise has been organizational learning and knowledge management. What he describes in this paper is directly applicable to this project, and therefore can help us to define the many pitfalls and opportunities we may encounter.

In his introduction he is very specific as to the type of organizational learning and the dynamic capabilities that an organization can attain.

This paper investigates the mechanisms through which organizations develop dynamic capabilities, defined as routinized activities directed to the development and adaptation of operating routines. It addresses the role of (1) experience accumulation, (2) knowledge articulation, (3) knowledge codification processes in the evolution of dynamic, as well as operational, routines. p. 339

The discussion therefore is not just about the knowledge repositories that we have, but also the speed at which organizational learning occurs. Professor Winter provides a framework in which we can analyze these attributes, defining them as;

Operating routines; Learning processes geared towards the operational functioning of the firm (both staff and line activities).

Dynamic capabilities; as the firm's ability to integrate, build, and reconfigure internal and external competencies to address rapidly changing environments. p. 340

Dare I ask if it is possible to have this dynamic capability and operating routines inherent in our wiki within the first or second iteration of the Preliminary Specification? That is to say, can we capture the substance of the industries operating routines within the very initial work. And then, have the performance of the activities in our wiki actually impact the way in which the industry operates. Is it possible that, even before we commence the coding of software that these knowledge repositories are the key element in moving the industry understanding forward? I think that is what is being suggested here by Winter as he states.

Beyond theory building, we hope that the present paper provides useful guidance for future empirical inquiry into the role that articulation and codification processes play in creating dynamic capabilities. That is its principal purpose, and although the existing empirical base is thin, we consider that there is already good reason to believe that significant progress in that direction is quite possible. p. 350

and

DEFINITION. A dynamic capability is a learned and stable pattern of collective activity through which the organization systematically generates and modifies its operating routines in pursuit of improved effectiveness. p. 340

Based on my understanding of the nature of the idea of using the Joint Operating Committee and those contained in the Draft Specification, our opportunity is not to just document the business within our knowledge repositories, but the ability to travel at a speed and understanding that is in excess of the earth sciences and engineering demands of the producers. Where the difficult questions are asked and with the collective intelligence of this community we are able to move the industry, build the software to support those organizational definitions and provide the producers with these dynamic capabilities.

Professor Winter defines the characteristics of the Learning Mechanisms and their influence on operating routines.

• Experience accumulation.
• Knowledge simulation.
• Knowledge codification.

In the Draft Specification we have enhanced the role of the producer firm by adding two separate and distinct types of work carried out by those that work for the firm. Determining their focus as being either long term or short term is the definition between the two types of workers. These categorizations are contained within the Knowledge & Learning, and Research & Capabilities Modules of the Draft Specification. Whereas the Knowledge & Learning is focused on the operational efficiencies of the JOC and the Research & Capabilities focused on the long term and strategic development of the necessary attributes to expand the "Dynamic" capabilities of the firm.

In addressing why this is done, Professor Winter states:

In a relatively static environment, a single learning episode may suffice to endow an organization with operating routines that are adequate, or even a source of advantage, for an extended period. Incremental improvements can be accomplished through the tacit accumulation of experience and sporadic acts of creativity. Dynamic capabilities are unnecessary, and if developed may prove too costly to maintain. But in a context where technological, regulatory, and competitive conditions are subject to rapid change, persistence in the same operating routines quickly becomes hazardous. Systematic change efforts are needed to track the environmental change; both superiority and viability will prove transient for an organization that has no dynamic capabilities. Such capabilities must themselves be developed through learning. If change is not only rapid but also unpredictable and variable in direction, dynamic capabilities and even the higher-order learning approaches will themselves need to be updated repeatedly. Failure to do so turns core competencies into core rigidities (Leonard Barton 1992).

In the future the oil and gas producer is competing based on their land base, engineering and science based understanding and application, these are the critical skills to have. An innovation based producer that is dynamically generating changes needs to separate the research and implementation of ideas. Idea generation does not need to be present in the JOC. Confusion and mistakes would arise if the two functions were joined. Change and innovation are the constant that will drive the dynamic capabilities in the producer firm. Where the more dynamic the firm, the more innovative and successful.

To somewhat get back to the topic at hand. I started this entry on the basis of the collective understanding and application of knowledge in this blog and the wiki that holds the Draft Specification. This latter information shows how these same principles apply to the development of the systems in oil and gas. The 11 module draft specification is to the oil and gas producer as the blog and wiki are to this community. Winter discusses an important element of how these are achieved.

Opportunity Costs. Conducting debriefing sessions and updating tools after the completion of the task cannot be done too often without diverting attention away from day-to-day operations. A balance between explicit learning activities and execution activities, between thinking and doing, is essential (March 1991, Mukherjee et al. 1999). March et al. (1991) argue that with highly infrequent events, organizations can learn from quasi histories (i.e., "nearly happened" events) or from scenario analysis. Both mechanisms entail a substantial amount of investment in cognitive efforts and, most likely, rely on the creation of written output or on the use of electronic support systems to identify and make all the assumptions explicit.

Making the analogy between the wiki and blog of this software development project, and, the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning Modules for the producer firm. These are the higher value added processes that make a producer more competitive in the future. These tasks and activities are what would be considered incremental to what the energy companies are conducting today. Almost exclusively focused on the immediate quarter has achieved the optimization of the near term profits. However the focus on execution precludes the ability to generate and build value over the long term. This separation of roles and responsibilities is what the Draft Specification modules are providing the producer.

The point of this entry, I guess, is to suggest that these higher level learning processes are supported and enabled in today's technologies. Whether it is the blog and wiki used in defining the optimal organizational makeup of an oil and gas producer. Or the Draft Specification and understanding that underlays the firms ability to find and produce commercial quantities of energy, technologies role in enabling the higher organizational performance are critical, and I would suggest necessary. Winter suggests;

The framework introduced in this paper, particularly the knowledge evolution cycle and the relationships among learning, dynamic capabilities, and operating routines-constitutes, we believe, a significant clarification of the structure of the phenomena. This inquiry is, however, still in its infancy. We know little, for example, of how the characteristics of the organizational structure and culture interact with the features of the task to be mastered in determining the relative effectiveness of the various learning behaviors.

Basing much of the Draft Specification on the solid research of Dosi, Langlois and Winter provides sound academic founding for using the JOC. I believe I have also made the case that the bureaucratic companies are unable to make the transition to this type of system. As well as the case that the bureaucratic company is failing. The difficult task that is necessary to make the People, Ideas & Objects application modules real is the investors money, and the oil and gas worker. Please contribute to this by selecting the PayPal button to provide the much needed revenue, email me your information so I can send you an invoice, and join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Winter Organization Execution Knowledge