The Preliminary Specification Part XXXII (S&AC Part V)
People, Ideas & Objects development of the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) of the Security & Access Control module is not without some historical context. Before the hierarchy, which I perceive as somewhat of a commercial development of the 20th century, there was only the military structure in terms of large organizations. The main difference between the two is rather subtle but significant. The military structure is much broader and flatter then the hierarchy. That is one of the ideals that we are seeking, but the more important feature is the ability for the chain of command to span multiple internal and external organizational structures.
If we analyze the U.S. Military we find a number of interesting attributes of using the military chain of command that will provide value in the use of People, Ideas & Objects software applications. First is the title and assignment of an individual in the military. For example, “Sgt. Richard Knuth, Company A, Brigade Special Troops Battalion, 3rd Heavy Brigade Combat Team, 3rd Infantry Division”. A similar title and assignment for the people within a Joint Operating Committee would help to clarify the role and responsibilities, authority and capabilities the individual would have within the JOC. For example this individual might have the following “Richard Knuth, Chief Engineer, Field Straddle, Elmworth. Irrespective of which firm this individual is from each of the participants would recognize that the authority of a Chief Engineer was the same throughout the industry and that the designation of Chief Engineer entitled the individual to authorize the appropriate actions.
Now this is not fundamentally different from how the industry operates today. What is different is the ability to operate in a fashion where the interactions between the producers in the JOC are done as if they were all employed by the JOC. Where multiple producer firms are contributing many full time staff to the JOC. This interaction between producers through the JOC can only be replicated if there is a recognizable chain of command between the firms that make up the JOC. In addition to the recognizable chain of command each organization must have additional governance concerns handled, and compliance plays a big part in this as well. (We will talk more about these in the future in the Compliance & Governance module.) That although it would be an easy thing to implement from a people point of view, the actual implementation of pooling the staff from multiple organizations becomes complex when we consider all of the implications. However, with the Information Technologies that exist today, and the issues of the shortages of earth science and engineering talent we have few choices but to pursue this pooling concept.
The nature of the people that will be working through the chain of command that is layered over the Joint Operating Committee will include all of the disciplines that are involved in the oil and gas industry. The contributions of staff, financial and technical resources will include everyone that is employed by the industry today. I can foresee many of the office buildings being refurbished to accommodate the staff of a single JOC. There the staff from the different producers would be seconded to work for the JOC, working at a single JOC not at any particular producer firm.
In previous blog posts discussing the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM). I noted this inter and intra organizational use of the MCCM was similar to that used by NATO. That armies of the various countries could work together and recognize personnel from each others armies and immediately recognize and use the same chain of command. Unfortunately then came Libya and the failure of NATO may be well at hand. And the unfortunate parallel may be seen as a striking example as why the MCCM might not work in People, Ideas & Objects. I think otherwise as the Joint Operating Committee is the financial framework of the industry. This means that all of the members of a JOC are equally driven by their financial interests. And that financial interest drives consensus. Therefore, the analogy to Libya would be inappropriate as their objective is not financially driven and the NATO members can not form a consensus on what the objective is. The point in using the NATO example was to show the ability to recognize the chain of command spanning multiple organizations. Not to submit that countries driven by politically different philosophies could agree militarily.
For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.
Please note what Google+ provides us is the opportunity to prove that People, Ideas & Objects are committed to developing this community. That this is user developed software, not change that is driven from the top down. Join me on the People, Ideas & Objects Google+ Circle and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification.