Who has the money.

It should be no surprise to any one that the money that supports these developments and the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP) comes from the oil and gas producers. I have spent a significant amount of time doing the research that supports the Draft Specification. The distribution of the ideas contained within that document has been heard far and wide. Time now to put this project into a commercial venture. This post sets out to detail how the money that supports the software developments and the community of people that will use the software in their future day to day operations.

Let me state clearly that the Users, People, or Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP's) are all one in the same. And the key focus of the quality and value of the software that is being made. I would hope that the involvement of the user has been clearly expressed in my writing over the past few years. User involvement is the critical and difficult component of how this business will succeed. Clearly, to my way of thinking the sustained commitment and enthusiasm of the user base has to be supported by a strong financial motivation. This post is how the user can make a lucrative and long term career and profession around this "ground floor" opportunity.

CISP's or users have two sources of revenue. One is from the producers they work with for the services they provide, and the second is for the work with the developers from People, Ideas & Objects. Making the application operate in the manner that the User needs in order to be effective in providing their services to the producer. The User being the critical hub of all activity in this community. All of this is high value added work and I can not think of many positions that would be more involved and interesting. Whether the individual who joins this community desires to be a sole proprietor or expand to a substantial firm, these options should be considered open and available.

All the work that will be commissioned by People, Ideas & Objects will be through a work order system. The Users participation will be very heavy at the beginning phases of development. Then when the specification is deemed by the Users to meet theirs and the producer's needs, the developers will begin the process of writing the system. It will be at that point the amount of time that the Users will be involved will decline slightly, limited to guiding the developers through the initial building process and defining and directing the future changes and enhancements they want in the system.

The users revenues from the producer will be for planning and implementing their system, training their staff, running their applications, monitoring and maintaining the firms use of the People, Ideas & Objects software. Anything and everything of an administrative, accounting, land, production, legal etc at the producer client. They will be well educated and senior enough to fully understand what the producer wants and needs. They are the people who know how to do the job, and they can detail these requirements to the developers to build the tools they need to do their job. Our collective objective is to ensure the producer is provided with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

The services to the producer are billed and managed by the users organization. People, Ideas & Objects does not foresee the need or desire to be involved in these operations. We are software developers.

So how does People, Ideas & Objects source their funding. The producers that use the software will be subject to a "rental" fee based on their production profile. And yes if a start up producer doesn't have any production then there is no software rental fee. And of course, for users that conduct work with People, Ideas & Objects developers, their clients lack of production does not preclude payment for their services in developing the software.

These rental fees are assessed on an annual basis and for 2010 the assessment will be $1.00 per barrel of oil equivalent per day. So a firm such as Exxon which has 3.921 million barrels of oil equivalent per day, their 2010 software rental assessment would be $3.921 million for the year. Conceptually when we include the National Oil Companies, International Oil Companies, Independents and start up operations. We could conceptually have a revenue stream of approximately $120 million. However that is probably far in excess of what will be realized. And that does not preclude us from increasing the $1.00 charge in subsequent years to a multiple of that.

These fees will be assessed on producers that have contracted with People, Ideas & Objects to participate in the further development of the Draft Specification. The obvious question is why would a producers do this? I think the development of this software under the direction of the user community. With the overall objective of providing the producer firm with the most profitable means of oil and gas exploration and production. The business model that charges the costs of development over the entire industry, once, is compelling and a significant reduction compared to the fees that are paid for SAP and Oracle. Simply there participation is a value adding process to their firm. Having the Users and developers working to most effectively run their firm.

Therefore any producer that wants to begin this process is welcome to join. I know that it is in the best interests of the Users not to identify themselves to a producer. I would caution anyone to do so until this process is moved further ahead. We are fighting the vested interests of management and they like nothing more then to attack any new and innovative way of doing their job. They have different ideas and they will use their budgets to exercise their desires. So please be careful. I will publish within this community a list of any producer that wishes to join this process and have paid their software rental. And to say that we may never see a producer step up is a real possibility. That is why I attempt to deal with the investors and stakeholders of the producer firms. They are the ones that must direct the management to fund these developments. If you know of someone who fits that description then please forward them this information. And please as always join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Community Development Process Organization User Value-Proposition
 

New Feed Address

Please change your "Innovation in oil and gas" feed from whatever you are using now, to this new feed address.

http://feeds.feedburner.com/blogspot/kuLF

Thanks

Technorati Tags: People's Technology Change
 

Change at Conoco

The Houston Chronicle reports today that ConocoPhillips have revised their corporate strategy.

ConocoPhillips CEO James Mulva signaled a dramatic shift in course for the nation's third-largest oil company Wednesday, saying that after years of bulking up through acquisitions, it is now focused on being a smaller, leaner business that takes better care of its shareholders.

Everything that People, Ideas & Objects is about is represented in that statement. Going back to the Preliminary Research Report, the changing nature of the energy industry has been evident for a long time. Nothing has been done about this during the past 10 years. Why would anything be done when the high energy prices made managements look effective. Now that the writing is on the wall, expect to see many CEO's become enlightened. I am surprised though at the comment that ConocoPhillips would take better care of its shareholders. It is the shareholders of these producer firms that I expect will direct the financial support towards People, Ideas & Objects and the User community. Providing them better control over their oil and gas assets.

A point about communication. If you or someone you know works at ConocoPhillips, or any other producer. Please introduce them to the Draft Specification and encourage them to get involved here. For me to establish a direct communication with ConocoPhillips, or for that matter any producer, is counter productive in terms of the Community of Independent Service Providers. It is the Users who are the critical contact with the firms. They are the ones that will use the People, Ideas & Objects application modules and their services to make the producer the most profitable that it can. It is the User community that will direct the developers in the development of the applications they need. For me to communicate directly with the producers is counter to the interests of this user community.

But the change is necessary in light of the global recession and the difficulty of accessing new oil and gas reserves around the globe, coupled with the massive costs of extracting them, he said.

An honest assessment of the change to the oil and gas business. The position of the producer firm needs to be able to focus and support the innovative earth science and engineering talent in their firm. To do that requires the Joint Operating Committee to be the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. It is one thing for ConocoPhillips to begin the process of becoming more focused on the sciences. In today's market the ability to change direction needs to have the changes recognized in the software first. SAP and an innovative science oriented Joint Operating Committee will not work. Bringing the CEO Mulva's comments into question as to their validity.

Mulva's comments underscore challenges facing major oil and gas companies and may even call into question the bigger-is-better, integrated business model that has prevailed in the oil industry for decades.

Asking these giants to make the change from the SAP induced bureaucratic firm to something more nimble is difficult for me to see without a change in the ERP systems they use.

Now, ConocoPhillips appears to be embracing a business model more akin to smaller, independent oil companies, which many investors prefer because they are more nimble and likely to deliver better returns, said Fadel Gheit, oil analyst with Oppenheimer & Co.

Who knows maybe they will be successful. Or the properties they sell off will continue to fuel new and more innovative firms.

When asked if he believes other oil companies will follow its downsizing lead, Mulva said not necessarily. But, he said, “I think longer term — I can't speak for the other companies — it's really changed from prior decades. It's going to take a somewhat different approach.”

That different approach is members of the User community joining me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Strategy Innovation Communication

McKinsey Interaction Costs Part II

This is the second post of McKinsey's review of Interaction Costs. The original McKinsey documents are located here and here. As in my first blog entry, the discussion is about the role that people will have in future organizations. How work is changing over time from transformational to transactional and on to tacit. McKinsey notes in its opening paragraph.

Like vinyl records and Volkswagen Beetles, sustainable competitive advantages are back in style - or will be as companies turn their attention to making their most talented, highly paid workers more productive. For the past 30 years, companies have boosted their labor productivity by re-engineering, automating, or outsourcing production and clerical jobs. But any advantage in costs or distinctiveness that companies gained in this way was usually short lived, for their rivals adopted similar technologies and process improvements and thus quickly match the leaders.

Durable competitive advantages, like in other industries, have been hard to develop in oil and gas. Much of the last 30 years has been a battle of survival from one crisis to the next. Most of these crisis were due to the high cost of capital, or low commodity prices. There have also been a variety of issues that are unique and local, such as the lack of take away pipeline capacity in Western Canada.

Today I see a different business that is driven by the earth science and engineering capabilities of the firm. Driven by these sciences ever increasing volume of work per barrel of oil equivalent. Application of the science and engineering knowledge to the asset base is the unique, durable competitive advantage of the producer firm. Sustainable competitive advantages are attainable in oil and gas to those that can build their capabilities in the earth sciences and engineering disciplines.

As we have mentioned here many times the key ingredient is the quality of the team that occupy senior management. Providing the resources and direction to reveal the long term value is the skill of these teams. The key is that oil and gas exists in the minds of oil and gas (wo)men.

New McKinsey research reveals that these high-value decision makers are growing in number and importance throughout many companies. As businesses come to have more problem solvers and fewer doers in their ranks, the way they organize for business changes. So does the economics of labor: workers who undertake complex, interactive jobs typically command higher salaries, and their actions have a disproportionate impact on the ability of companies to woo customers, to compete and to earn profits. Thus, the potential gains to be realized by making these employees more effective at what they do and by helping them to do it more cost effectively are huge - as is the downside of ignoring this trend.

What can I say. McKinsey have been able to provide advice such as this throughout the past decade. What is needed in oil and gas is the organization, its systems, the people that support the team and the team itself to operate at a higher level. A level that is focused on innovation in the earth sciences and engineering capabilities and the never ending increases in the demand for these talents for every barrel of oil equivalent.

SAP is the bureaucracy. Started in the 1970's to deal with the various tiers of manufacturers in the auto industry, SAP has branched out into all the industries on the planet. SAP is the most popular choice of senior producers and holds the number one position of ERP systems in oil and gas. I have seen installations that use the budget system to calculate the gross and net expenditures on a Statement of Expenditures or Statement of Operations. To suggest that they recognize the Joint Operating Committee is beyond the scope of what is possible. With the numbers of companies, and the volume of installed code, there is not enough energy in the universe for SAP to make the changes to support the innovative oil and gas producer.

Much can be said about Oracle Fusion as well. Oracle recently showed some of the aspects of their new system. They should be credited with the energy to at least rewrite the software code. That only took them $39 billion. So one can see the scope of how difficult it is for these applications to change their stripes. Now Oracle has to embark on the other aspect of moving the universe by changing their paying customers to the newer far more expensive software. Exactly, what was Oracle's CEO Larry Ellison thinking.

Neither of these two software vendors have listed the energy industry as a primary focus. They have ceased to be a viable alternative in the oil and gas marketplace for their inability to understand or deal with the unique attributes of the producer. That is they do not know of the Joint Operating Committee's existence. Neither of these two applications have any vision of what the oil and gas firm can understand or appreciate.

Neither of these two software vendors have a business model that meets the needs of the producers. Or a business model that provides the value of the software to the benefit of the software user. Theirs are more interested in corporate survival, due to their $39 billion in investments. It is however, reasonable to assume that both these two software vendors will be able to deploy vast armies of marketing people to impress the "old school" management with another version of their software.

This will be a test of the "old school's" managements survival from the pre-crisis economy. McKinsey sees this reality just as I do here at People, Ideas & Objects.

As more 21st-century companies come to specialize in core activities and outsource the rest, they have greater need for workers who can interact with other companies, their customers, and their suppliers. (Enabled in People, Ideas & Objects by the Resource Marketplace Module)

Thus the traditional organization, where a few top managers coordinate the pyramid below them, is being upended.

Raising the productivity of employees whose jobs can't be automated is the next great performance challenge -- and the stakes are high.

Companies that get it right will build complex talent-based competitive advantages that competitors won't be able to duplicate easily -- if at all.

I think that I am on record as stating that "best practice" is one of the worst acts that management conceived. For oil and gas producers to maintain their competitive advantage is to focus on their asset base, which includes their land lease and productive assets augmented with their earth science and engineering capabilities.

The good news concerns competitive advantage. As companies figure out how to raise the performance of their most valuable employees in a range of business activities, they will build distinctive capabilities based on a mix of talent and technology. Reducing these capabilities to a checklist of producers and IT systems (which rivals would be able to copy) isn't going to be easy. Best practice thus won't become everyday practice quite as quickly as it has in recent years.

Much of the McKinsey article focuses on the changes in the types of work that is being undertaken at firms today. Documenting how jobs, and particularly new jobs, are focused on tacit interactions. How over time jobs have transcended transformational to transaction oriented and now "tacit" work.

As I indicated in Part I of this review, the reductions in transaction costs is a focus of the Draft Specification. This second McKinsey article is on the role that people will fill in the future of work. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Capabilities Competition Innovation Value-Proposition
 

Paul Romer on BBC

We have covered former Stanford Professor Paul Romer in this blog before. In fact People, Ideas & Objects is the name that I derived from Romer's new growth theory. New growth theory suggests that future economic growth will be developed from People, Ideas & Things. I simply changed "Things" for "Objects" as we are object based software developers.

Romer is on the short list for a Nobel prize because of his new growth theory. In a related BBC commentary, an excellent summary of his thinking of what "Ideas" are about.

Physical objects are often scarce; economic growth is often limited by that scarcity. Conventional economics is the so-called dismal science, dominated by the law of diminishing returns where businesses compete with each other into their ultimate extinction, capitalism making the rope to hang itself.

Paul Romer disagrees, profoundly. Ideas are what makes the difference, and turn economics into the optimistic science. And in the networked world, in software, in new research-heavy disciplines such as biotechnology, ideas are shared across frontiers at lightening speed and then breed much faster than rabbits.

Needless to say Romer is blogging and providing more substance to his ideas here. His recent post on how certain countries were able to deal with the housing of its citizens is fascinating. Are we destined to learn these same lessons from the beginning again? We would be foolish not to review what works, and where it works, based on the experiences we have to date. That is what Charter Cities is about and I think the lesson is directly applicable to the work we are doing in People, Ideas & Objects software developments for oil and gas.

"There’s a little corner of economics where there still exists a sense of wonder about what is possible."

Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Romer Economics Knowledge Video
 

And there's more.

The energy industry does have a problem that is reflected well in today's $81 oil price. The purpose of this blog is to organize and develop the software modules in the Draft Specification. Why we are doing this is that the bureaucracy is constrained and is unable to meet the demands of the consumers in the 21st century. Without abundant energy the world economy will be in jeopardy, as will our way of life.

John B. Hess is the CEO of Hess Corporation, a second generation exploration and production oil and gas company. With a market value of $20 billion they have become one of the U.S.' great independent producers. It's reasonable then to assume that Hess knows what he is talking about. And he does.

In a major statement entitled "Oil and the Future", Hess has released a paper that discusses the energy industries looming supply side crisis. The problem is well defined in this paper. What we need to do is organize ourselves to face this challenge. Without the software that supports and defines the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) we will not be able to rise to this challenge.

Hess goes on to provide sound advice to deal with this problem. His recommendations are the three C's Communication, Courage and Collaboration. The following quotations capture the scope of the problem.

My remarks today will cover “Oil and the Future.” Today, our industry is at a crossroads. Oil has moved to a demand-led market where supply is struggling to keep pace. The financial crisis of the past year has reduced demand by 2 million barrels per day, creating excess inventories and lower prices. While this setback has brought us some welcome breathing room, I believe that it is only temporary. Once economic growth recovers, it is likely we will return to the market conditions of one year ago. The price of $140 per barrel oil was not an aberration; it was a warning.

A warning, indicating that there is time remaining. Our approach should be to get organized first. And for innovative oil and gas producers in the 21st century, getting organized means building the software to define and support the Joint Operating Committee.

Over the past several years, many people in our business have expressed confidence that we were up to meeting the challenges ahead. From the producer perspective, it has been suggested that the remaining global endowment of up to 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil meant that we should not be concerned with a prospect of shortages. Higher prices, advancing technology and sound government policies would enable supply to keep up with demand. Consuming nations viewed these issues quite differently, criticizing producers for rising prices, blaming oil for climate change and implementing policies to develop alternatives to hydrocarbons. I would suggest there is a major disconnect between consumers and producers.

In this next quotation, Hess defines a break between what the producers see and what they act upon. It's a break that I find interesting in dealing with this problem. Each producer firm is only concerned with their production and do not necessarily see the broader picture. Looking at the horizon they see that such and such heavy oil project and these offshore resources will offset any declines experienced by any of the other producers. In other words the horizon is muddled by too much information.

The approaches of both consumers and producers are based on hope, but what we need is a sober reality. The reality is that an oil crisis is coming that could prove devastating to future economic growth. Given the long lead times of 5-to-10 years from oil discovery to production, we need to act now to avert this outcome. I would like to suggest a framework of three “C’s” to address this threat: communication, courage and collaboration.

All is not lost. Over the course of my career in the oil and gas industry, I have been shocked in terms of its performance. When called upon the industry has been able to deliver, and I would expect the same from this current call. Hess' message is to communicate the facts and eliminate the confusion around this issue.

Given these facts, we need to communicate the following message:

1. Hydrocarbons are here to stay.
2. Oil demand growth will be unrelenting, increasing 1 million barrels per day each year.
3. We are not running out of oil but growth of production capacity over the next several years will fall short of the incremental 5 million barrels per day each year that we will need to meet demand.
4. We will ultimately be at risk of supply rationing demand through skyrocketing prices that will threaten economic stability and prosperity. If we do not act now, we will have a devastating oil crisis in the next 5-to-10 years.

In reading the paper I came to the realization that this is an all interested persons must rise to this challenge. Consumers, International Oil Companies, National Oil Companies, Independent producers, OPEC, and consuming nations.

The stakes have never been higher. We must build a balanced and comprehensive approach to energy security and protection of the environment to ensure sustainable development. We must unite and work together as an industry, communicating one message, having the courage to act and collaborating for the global good. In this world, there will be a bright future, not only for oil, but for many generations to come.

We are a fair distance from resolving this. I have suggested that the ability to conduct appropriate exploration has been lost since the hey day's of the 1960's. Hess is quoted in this paper as stating "Resource additions from exploration last replaced annual production in 1987". We have a job to do, please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Call-to-Action Change Economics Energy

Where is IT heading

Apple announced its forth quarter earnings yesterday. I think these earnings show that the demand for IT systems is very strong. Strong growth in all product lines provides a confidence in the recovery of the economy. The global recession has certainly abated for Apple, but is there more to these financial results? Is there more that can be imputed about the general economic recovery?

We can thank Professor Carlota Perez for pointing us to the fact that the old economy was becoming progressively more inefficient. And that this inefficiency would lead to a decline in the engines that drive the economy. This fact is generally agreed to by most, and that change is in the air from an economic point of view. But more importantly is her highlighting the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), in providing the real value generation of the near future.

Perez stated simply the Information & Communication Technologies are the engine that will bring the world economy to an entire new level of performance. A level where the problems of today will pale in comparison to our opportunities. That we will experience an increase in general quality and standards of living. I like to think we are at a point in time that parallels the industrial revolution, which we are. But instead of mechanical leverage we are leveraging intellectual thought and ideas. An opportunity that will take us many decades of increasing productivity and quality of life.

The New York Times ran an article that speaks to these opportunities.

Much depends on how the nascent revival in the technology sector plays out. Computer hardware and software are building blocks of the modern economy, as basic as iron ore and coal were to the industrial era. Together, technology products represent about half of all business spending on equipment.

John T. Chambers, chief executive of Cisco, was even more bullish recently, predicting a substantial increase in productivity at American companies driven by investments in Internet software and hardware. “I think we are entering a period very similar to 1997 to 2004, where you’ll see a decade run of productivity increases,” he said in an interview.

And for the oil and gas industry that is what People, Ideas & Objects is about. The Users, Producers and Developers that are involved in this applications development. We'll be able to incorporate the never ending productivity initiatives into the software. Making the producer firms benefit by being the most profitable operations through the use of this software and Community of Independent Service Providers. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Call-to-Action Perez Change Economics

A Brief Summary

The last two blog posts highlight the value of the Draft Specification and why the industry needs to begin the process of building this application. The Users and Producers are both major beneficiaries of being involved in this project. The Users have the opportunity to build the systems and Community of Independent Service Providers. These Users are focused on ensuring that they provide the most profitable means of operations of any producer.

For the Producer, not only do they get the systems and software that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee, the natural form of organization in the industry. They also have the ground work inherent in their organizations that will enable them to remain innovative for decades to come. With People, Ideas & Objects, producers will have their organizational DNA able to carry them for at least twenty more years.

The other thing we have learned in these last two posts is that the competition has no vision. Oracle has been in "rewrite" mode for the better part of this past decade. Buying ERP vendors by the dozens, they have inherited a legacy of applications that are being brought under the name of the rewritten Oracle Fusion. That's a compelling vision! Until now we have not had the benefit of a well defined competitive offering from Oracle. Now that Fusion is defined we can move away from their declaration of it being a competitive offering.

The strategic positions and offerings of Oracle, SAP and People, Ideas & Objects are there for each producer to begin their evaluation. And don't forget to evaluate the different business models. People, Ideas & Objects is charging the costs of developing the application once, across the entire industry. I don't think that Larry Ellison with his $24 Billion in acquisitions, and $15 Billion of research and development on Fusion, will have his customer in mind. He probably is more concerned from which direction his board will be attacking from.

Oracle and SAP products provide technological solutions to business issues. They recommend their products to be purchased and installed in a "big bang" style. Change of the magnitude of People, Ideas & Objects is considering is successful when done from the ground up. The problem with ground up driven change is that it needs a vision. The difficulty for Oracle and SAP is they have no vision of what the innovative oil and gas producer needs.

If your a user interested in getting involved, please join me here. If your a producer that wants to start supporting this development, please call me by using the call me feature at the bottom of the left hand column.

Technorati Tags: People's Competition Community Vision Change CISP Competition Funding
 

Producers Have Choices

Shadow boxing has been something we've had to do here for the past number of years. Our opponent, Oracle was under development with their Oracle Fusion product suite. Fusion is now being promoted, that is to say it's being revealed, to help interested producers decide which system, Oracle, SAP or People, Ideas & Objects, they should use. As no one in their right mind would select SAP the decisions were somewhat delayed until Oracle revealed their hand. Now its D-Day.

For the past four years the giant Elephant in the room has been what Oracle was spending their time and money on. Since their acquisition of PeopleSoft, J.D. Edwards, BEA and Siebel they had been busy developing their Fusion offering and strategy. Therefore it's now time to expand our focus of the competition to include Oracle Fusion. I think I have seen enough to know that the Oracle's Fusion product is not designed or suitable for the oil and gas producer. But then I am biased.

Last week Oracle had their annual OpenWorld conference in San Francisco. Oracle CEO Larry Ellison made the keynote presentation on Wednesday. The one hour, forty minute presentation is available here. I highly recommend the viewing of this video to see the type of applications that Oracle is bringing to the market. Viewing of the conferences other presentations are available here. Of interest there is a good video of Sun Chairman Scott McNeally who appears to be retiring from Sun. Always entertaining.

The most obvious point in viewing Ellison's keynote is that he has spent a lot of money. To make this offering the following table reflects how much money Oracle has spent.

PeopleSoft - J.D. Edwards	December 2004	$10.3 billion
BEA	January 2008	$7.85 billion
Siebel	September 2005	$5.85 billion
Research & Development	2005 - 2009	$15.0 billion
Total Investment in	Oracle Fusion	$39.0 billion

And that does not include any sail boats. The serious question that has to be asked is how is Oracle going to make a return on this investment? All of this money has been expended to bring out a generic set of modules that deal with the company as a silo'd entity. Again it has no consideration or understanding that the Joint Operating Committee is the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer.

In a direct comparison of the module specifications, we see the stark difference between the Draft Specification and Oracle's costly Fusion offering.

Modules available in Oracle Fusion.

• Financial Management
• Human Capital Management
• Sales and Marketing
• Supply Chain Management
• Project Portfolio Management
• Procurement Management
• Governance, Risk and Compliance

Vs. People, Ideas & Objects modules

Generic Modules

Security & Access Control Module

Accounting Modules

Partnership Accounting Module

Accounting Voucher Module

Marketplace Modules

Petroleum Lease Marketplace Module

Resource Marketplace Module

Financial Marketplace Module

Producer Modules

Compliance & Governance Module
Research & Capabilities

Analytics & Statistics Module

Joint Operating Committee Modules

Knowledge & Learning Module
Performance Evaluation Module

People, Ideas & Objects provide the producers with the applications on a cost plus basis. The one time development costs are amortized over the entire industry. Our business is to provide the producer with a software development capability that accommodates the changes in their business. Changes from today and for many decades to come. I will highlight the analysis and decisions that were made in coming to this model over the next few weeks.

Oracle's business model has not changed. Selling the entire application suite to each company is the only way that they can begin to amortize the capital costs they have spent to date. Now whether Oracle will consider those investments as a sunk cost or not is something for them to figure out. But this is not something that is going to be resolved quickly.

Another aspect of these high capital costs, is that Oracle hasn't garnered any competitive advantage in the oil and gas business. Large additional capital costs will still be needed by the purchaser of the Oracle Fusion application suite. I believe the costs associated to customize Oracle Fusion to the producers needs will be substantially greater then the total People, Ideas & Objects costs.

A critical and important characteristic of the People, Ideas & Objects application is being revealed by comparing Oracle's business model. All of the Joint Operating Committee participants are being accommodated by our application. There will be no need to coordinate the interactions with each and every participant, with each and every Joint Operating Committee. The problem in systems in oil and gas is that the interactions beyond the corporate reach cause the firms to expend significant effort in making these interactions work. People, Ideas & Objects is looking at the costs from the JOC point of view, therefore the interactions are handled at the point of origin. The costs associated with defining these interactions in the Oracle Fusion product will be incremental to the costs of People, Ideas & Objects.

If it is not clearly evident to the oil and gas producers that their is a need for new systems in oil and gas, it should be. And that the least constrained, conflicted and confused option is an advantage. This start up with a compelling vision provides real value to the oil and gas producer in comparison to these costly behemoths. How many years before Oracle and SAP come up with a compelling vision of how the oil and gas industry is able to move to the greater demands expected of each producer.  Now is the time to decide where the future of your companies systems come from. Everybody get on board and join me here, the train is leaving the station.

Technorati Tags: People's Vision Oracle Competition
 

From Draft to Preliminary

I published the Draft Specification last year and we now move on to the Preliminary Specification. The Draft was developed to codify the research and ensure that a system based on its specification would identify and support the innovative producer. The Preliminary Specification has many objectives but the most important factor is the User will be who will work to define the requirements.

This is the point where the User begins the task of defining what the requirements of the application are. It is also the point where I will no longer have any influence in the makeup of the application. That's the point, one person could do this work if they were able to live to the age of 4,000 years. The scope of the application, as defined, covers the administration and management of the producer. From accounting, legal, land, capital and operational expenditures the entire firm is operated by the People, Ideas & Objects application. Just as SAP is used throughout the company.

The Partnership Accounting Module brings in an additional expansion of the scope by including all global jurisdictions as requirements. If a producer is to operate within all possible areas of oil and gas operations they will need to handle the currency, partners jurisdiction and accounting regulation requirements. Joint Operating Committee's are used throughout the world. Their operations command that the application accommodates operations in any area of the world, with partners who reside in any jurisdiction of the world.

Sounds simple doesn't it. Defining the scope is one of the difficult jobs to be determined in the Preliminary Specification. The compromises, the tough decisions will need to be made by the Users during their development of the specification. That is why the Users are compensated for these contributions and use the knowledge learned to develop their own service based offering as part of the Community of Independent Service Providers.

The Users defined scope will also be dictated by the producers that are involved in funding this project. If a producer firm requires heavy oil operations, natural gas or conventional oil. If they need certain geographically or regional coverage or SEC, SEBI, China Securities Regulatory Commission or Britain's Securities and Investments Board. Or needs to pay Texas, U.S. Alberta or Yemen royalties. A producer that does not include their operations at this critical point in time, can not have the application they need, or the Users that are intimately knowledgeable of their needs. There is much at risk as we transition from the Draft to Preliminary Specifications.

The overwhelming level of the scope of People, Ideas & Objects functionality and process management are daunting. Spooky might be the more operative word. I have been working on this project for over six years and I will continue to work to make this application real. Its that passion thing. Much of what I thought was going to happen in the Preliminary Research Report has come about. The time is now to begin this critical next step of the Preliminary Specification.

The community that reads this blog is large and is waiting along side me. Waiting for the producers to begin funding the Preliminary Specification. Their funding which is needed to ensure it contains what they require in terms of their operations. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Specification Funding Users Development