The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXIV (K&L Part XXX
We talk a lot about Joint Operating Committees here but always in the abstract. I just wanted to note that they come in all sizes and shapes and would note that they can be quite large, some with seven hundred dedicated staff. Irrespective of their size and shape they are the focus of this software development and are the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic framework of the industry. By moving the compliance and governance frameworks into alignment with the seven Joint Operating Committees frameworks we will achieve a speed, innovativeness and accountability in the operations of oil and gas.
That is the innovation that People, Ideas & Objects places everything on. The eleven module Preliminary Specification takes that innovation and is a further reorganization of the oil and gas producer and Joint Operating Committee around the principles of specialization and the division of labor. The value of the Preliminary Specification is the result of using the innovation of the Joint Operating Committee. From Professor Langlois book “Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler and the New Economy.”
The first, and most obvious, point is that it was an outside individual, not an organization, who was responsible for the reorganization of the industry. Lazonick is right in saying that genuine innovation involves reorganizing or planning (which may not be the same thing) the horizontal and vertical division of labor. But it was not in this case “organizational capabilities” that brought the reorganization about. It was an individual and not at all a “collective” vision, one that, however carefully thought out, was a cognitive leap beyond the existing paradigm. If SMH [a case he is discussing] came to possess organizational capabilities, as it surely did, those capabilities were the result, not the cause, of the innovation. p. 46
We are critical of the bureaucracy for a variety of reasons however there may be one benefit from their centralized point of view. Although they have fought to eliminate People, Ideas & Objects from the marketplace. And they have done nothing in terms of adopting new Information Technologies. IBM was the last to attempt any significant investment in oil and gas systems and their exit in frustration was almost a decade ago. According to Professor Richard Langlois book, the bureaucracy may be ideal for deciding it is time for change. One could hope that a change in the attitude towards People, Ideas & Objects could happen, but I’d just be dreaming.
As I have argued elsewhere (Langlois 1992b), the benefit of centralization lies in the ability to bring about change, not in the ability to administer existing structures. p. 47
I have always asserted in my battle with the bureaucracy that we ignore them and deal with the C class executive and shareholders of the oil and gas industry. They have it on the line and will be the ones that pay the price if things don’t go well. Management will just saunter off to the next job if something bad happens. And it's here that maybe Professor Langlois and I are thinking of the same people who are the appropriate decision makers.
Nonetheless, innovativeness requires more than mechanistically searching for new routines. In Hamel and Prahalad, it essentially involves forcing the firm to take on more of the characteristics of a market: it must develop the kind of genetic diversity Friedrich Hayek praised. “In nature,” they write, “genetic variety comes from unexpected mutations. The corporate corollary is skunk works, intrapreneurship, spinoffs, and other forms of bottom-up innovation” (Hamel and Prahalad 1994, p. 61). In the end, however, they, like Crozier, realize that the most radical kind of change must come from the top down: it requires a Schumpeterian entrepreneurial vision. “Top management cannot abdicate its responsibility for developing, articulating, and sharing a point of view about the future. What is needed are not just skunk works and intrapreneurs, but senior managers who can escape the orthodoxies of the corporation’s current ‘concept of self’” (Hamel and Prahalad 1994, p. 87). Example? Nicolas Hayek’s “crazy” vision that the Swiss could manufacture cheap watches competitively with the Japanese (pp. 98-99). p. 49
The Preliminary Specification is the vision that “top management” can use to “articulate and share a point of view about the future.” What is unknown at this point is if they will do what is required.
Indeed, one might argue that, the farther an innovation is from the ken of existing firms, the more likely it is that the innovation will be instantiated in new organizations. p. 49
The Joint Operating Committee is closer to the oil and gas industries conceptual model then the bureaucracy is. We are resonating with the culture of the industry on a global basis. I don’t know if that means we will be instantiated in new organizations or adopted by the existing ones?
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 (private circle, accessible by members only) and begin building the community for the development of the Preliminary Specification.