The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXXIV (C&G Part XXIII)

We have been concerned with the governance over operations in the last number of posts. And today we look into the governance over the two major processes of innovation in the Preliminary Specification. The first process of innovation is the development of the innovation within the producer firm and is a result of the earth science and engineering capabilities being developed. The second process is as a result of the field level innovations that are developed by the service industry and are either product or service related in terms of their offering to the producer or Joint Operating Committee during some operation. Either way it is important that the producer firm have a measure of governance over the developments of innovation for a variety of reasons. These governance elements will again be captured in the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” of the Compliance & Governance module. Quotes are from Professor Richard Langlois paper “Innovation Process and Industrial Districts”.

What is it that the innovative oil and gas producer and Joint Operating Committee will be doing when they are “innovating”. That seems to be a fairly reasonable question and one that would be the founding principle in which the governance over the innovating processes should be based on. It's here that Professor Langlois provides us with a very good summary for our purposes.

Innovation is based on the generation, diffusion, and use of new knowledge. p. 1

The source of this new knowledge, and all of the knowledge is the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. Recall that “knowledge begets capabilities, and capabilities begets action”. The capabilities that are contained within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” are comprehensive and are designed to serve the needs of all of the people that are required for that particular operation.

While it is possible to conceive of a firm that is so hermetic in its use of knowledge that all stages of innovation, including the combination of old and new knowledge, rely exclusively on internal sources, in practice most innovations involving products or processes of even modest complexity entail combining knowledge that derives, directly or indirectly, from several sources. Knowledge generation, therefore, must be accompanied by effective mechanisms for knowledge diffusion and for "indigenizing" knowledge originally developed in other contexts and for other purposes so that it meets a new need. p. 1

and

Relationships within industrial districts therefore lead to diffusion but also to the creation of new knowledge through shared preoccupations. Because many people or firms can work on a problem simultaneously, a number of different solutions may be found (Bellandi, 2003b). The results is a larger and stronger "gene pool" within the sector (Loasby, 1990, 117), with the further advantage that solutions that are originally regarded as competing may turn out to be complementary and well-suited to different niches within the district.  p. 7

I could go on for ever reciting the elements of the Preliminary Specification as the reasons for the governance requirements in the “Operational Review & Governance Interface”. The point that needs to be made is that the two major processes of innovation need to be reviewed from a high level within the firm. There are so many interactions between the firm and the Joint Operating Committee and the larger service industry that the possibility that all of the valuable knowledge is not all codified is high. That is just one of the risks. Another is that the “Lessons Learned Interface” doesn’t capture the failures accurately for further learning. These are all necessary to have someone review to ensure that the knowledge and capabilities, as well as the innovations are built upon for the future.

And with this final post on Professor Richard Langlois we move on to our fifth pass through the Preliminary Specification. I'll have a few general things to say tomorrow to wrap where we are and where we are heading.

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.

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXXIII (C&G Part XXII)

Within the Preliminary Specification there is a conflict or contradiction that needs to be managed through the Compliance & Governance module. That is the posture that needs to be presented by the people who are members of the Joint Operating Committee towards the service industry representatives. At two different times and two different places during the ongoing operation of the properties the approach towards the service industry will be fundamentally different. At one time the approach will be to have the service industry operate as a free wheeling marketplace where the innovation and ideas are flowing at the fastest possible rate. And then there will be the times when the operations are being conducted and the need for military precision is expected and required to ensure the operations are completed successfully. This Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde routine would give most people in both the Joint Operating Committee and the service industry a second look.

We have discussed this contrast in the Preliminary Specification before. On the one hand we have a marketplace and on the other we have operational control. And for many reasons the two may be comprised of the same people operating in different capacities at different times. The governance issue is; how do we ensure that the operating mode, marketplace or operational control, is the appropriate mode that everyone is operating under. This is of particular concern to the service industry representatives, as so much of the operational control and success of the operation is dependent on their full attention.

The answer to this question comes from the “Operational Review & Governance Interface”. If there is an operation that is currently being conducted by the Joint Operating Committee. And there has been no corners cut or short cuts taken then there will be the explicit knowledge contained in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface”, the “Planning & Deployment Interface”, assignments under the Military Command & Control Metaphor which will include representatives of the service industry, the AFE, and Job Order. Whereas none of these are required in the marketplace. Therefore the onus is on the Joint Operating Committee to ensure that these tools are used to ensure that the contrast from a freewheeling marketplace is imposed. And it will be in the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” that the governance over the members of the Joint Operating Committee is imposed to ensure they are using these tools appropriately during their operations.

Operational control and innovation are on two opposite ends of the same spectrum. That however does not mean that they can’t be attained by the same organization. The innovative oil and gas producer must have both. One without the other is not worth pursuing. The conflict and contradiction will show up in the organization at some point and the need to deal with it becomes a governance issue. The user of the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” will have the tools necessary to ensure that the Joint Operating Committee is able to discern the difference between innovative markets and tight operational control.

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. 

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXXII (C&G Part XXI)

We have asserted and I am certain that it is generally agreed that the oil & gas industry is moving towards its scientific basis as its primary form of competitive advantage. The days in which financiers or lawyers could build viable producers based on their skills are numbered if not nonexistent. There is also a perception that is developed through the Preliminary Specification that the producer is a firm that maintains financial interests in a variety of Joint Operating Committees. That the producer will deploy their capabilities to these assets when and where they are needed and as the capabilities are developed. These processes are under constant levels of change and innovation in the innovative producer which causes “Dynamic Transaction Costs” to be incurred, and for people to question the direction of the changes. What is needed is a method of governance in the Compliance & Governance module over the overall process of change to ensure that the ship maintains its course and the costs remain in line. Quotations are from Professor Richard Langlois “Transaction Costs in Real Time” paper.

Over time, capabilities change as firms and markets learn, which implies a kind of information or knowledge cost - the cost of transferring the firm's capabilities to the market or vice-verse. These "dynamic" governance costs are the costs of persuading, negotiating and coordinating with, and teaching others. They arise in the face of change, notably technological and organizational innovation. In effect, they are the costs of not having the capabilities you need when you need them. p. 99

The other day we introduced the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” and today’s post will continue with its discussion. In our previous post we had the ability to mentor the Project Manager and oversee or supervise the operation if required. What we need to discuss today is broader and more global in scope. An interface that encapsulates the entire firm's operations so that the user can see that the direction the firm has taken in terms of capabilities development is being optimized in its Joint Operating Committees, etc. It would be of little value if the firm was expending valuable resources on developing its capabilities on fracing when none of the Joint Operating Committees were deploying, or able to deploy the technologies.

With the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” the user would be able to review the entire operation as it happened. From the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” to the “Planning & Deployment Interface”, AFE, Job Order and “Lessons Learned Interface”. Review all of the actions taken and the documentation that was generated during the operation to determine what was the critical cause of the success or failure of the operation. This could be done in fine detail or in summary form to oversee the many operations that may have been conducted.

Another variable that is being captured by the Preliminary Specification is the “Dynamic Transaction Costs” themselves. These are the costs associated with change. When people run into these costs then they will know to code them to the Dynamic Transaction Costs account in the chart of accounts. This will be a red flag in the “Operation Review & Governance Interface” for the user to trigger on. When they see high levels of “Dynamic Transaction Costs” then they know the operation ran in to high levels of change and / or innovation. Therefore they will be able to see the implications of these costs in the knowledge and information in the interface. And know that either some significant change or innovation was the result.

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. 

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXXI (C&G Part XX)

We are discussing the operational governance of the firm and Joint Operating Committee. An important element of this discussion is the capabilities that these organizations have access to. Capabilities are documented in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules of the Preliminary Specification. And are one of the key competitive advantages of the innovative oil and gas producer. Therefore from a governance point of view these capabilities need to be safeguarded and ensure that they are kept for your firms eyes only. Nothing could be further from the truth. The use of these capabilities will cause their leakage to outside firms. And it is imperative that the firm consider the use of their capabilities as having the right information deployed by the right people at the right time. The Compliance & Governance module will therefore be more concerned with the appropriate use of the capabilities, rather than the hoarding of information. From Professor Richard Langlois “Organizing the Electronic Century”.

"This is the basic modularization of the market economy. It accords well with the modularization G. B. Richardson (1972) suggested in offering the concept of economic capabilities. By capabilities Richardson means "knowledge, experience, and skills" (1972, p. 888), a notion related to what Jensen and Meckling (1992) call "specific knowledge and to what Hayek (1945) called "knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place." For the most part, Richardson argues, firms will tend to specialize in activities requiring similar capabilities, that is, "in activities for which their capabilities offer some comparative advantage" (Richardson 1972, p. 888)." p. 27

What is it that we are trying to achieve in employing these capabilities. It is of course to generate value. But more importantly to generate value on behalf of the owners represented in the Joint Operating Committee. In economic terms this value is called “externalities”. After the operation, after the deployment of the right capabilities at the right time by the right people the value should have been gained by the members of the Joint Operating Committee.

So why don't we observe everywhere a perfectly atomistic modularization according to comparative advantage in capabilities - with no organizations of any significance, just workers wielding tools and trading in anonymous markets? We have already seen the outlines of several answers. The older property rights literature, we saw, would insist that the reason is externalities, notably the externalities of team work arising from the nature of the technology of production itself. The mainstream economics of organization is fixated on another possibility: because of highly specific assets, parties can threaten one another with pecuniary externalities ex post in a way that has real ex ante effects on efficiency (Klein, Crawford, and Alchian 1978; Williamson 1985). Richardson offers a somewhat different, and perhaps more fertile, alternative. Firms seek to specialize in activities for which their capabilities are similar: but production requires the coordination of complementary activities. Especially in a world of change, such coordination requires the transmission of information beyond what can be sent through the interface of the price system. As a consequence, qualitative coordination is necessary, and that need brings with it not only the organizational structure called the firm but also a variety of inter-firm relationships and interconnections as well." pp. 27 - 28

If the Joint Operating Committee coordinates these capabilities in the appropriate manner then the externalities will flow to the producers represented there. That is what the governance of the operation is most concerned about. That there was leakage of some documentation of these capabilities during the operation is immaterial to the externalities and the competitive position of the firm. Recall during our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi for the Preliminary Specification. His research showed that it took an equal and sometimes greater effort to copy another firm's capabilities then it did to generate the capabilities themselves. It is therefore more effective for a firm to focus on their key competitive advantages of their land and asset base, and their earth science and engineering capabilities. And the effective and efficient deployment of these competitive advantages on a “just in time” basis.

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.

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXX (C&G Part XIX)

What I am seeing develop with our review of Professor Richard Langlois writings. Is that there will be an element of the Preliminary Specifications Compliance & Governance module that will be devoted to what we would call “operational governance”. Today’s post will discuss the incentives vs. coordination issue of any operation that a Joint Operating Committee undertakes. This deals with the current conflict between the producers and service industry and the high costs associated with any field operation. Producers feel that the costs are out of control in the field and are imposing cost controls in an effort to manage them. People, Ideas & Objects feel that coordination of the field operations will provide the appropriate means to control costs and will also provide for better outcomes. The coordination coming about through the modules in the Preliminary Specification, specifically the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning. In his paper “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization” Professor Richard Langlois states.

More generally, we are worried that conceptualizing all problems of economic organization as problems of aligning incentives not only misrepresents important phenomena but also hinders understanding other phenomena, such as the role of production costs in determining the boundaries of the firm. As we will argue, in fact, it may well pay off intellectually to pursue a research strategy that is essentially the flip-side of the coin, namely to assume that all incentive problems can be eliminated by assumption and concentrate on coordination (including communication) and production cost issues only. p.17

Let's assume for a moment that the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification is operational in your firm. You have the Military Command & Control Metaphor, the Planning & Deployment Interface, the AFE and Job Order systems operational as expected however your results continue to disappoint and the cost overruns are tragic. How do we ensure that the performance expectations are met and these poor performing situations are identified quickly and dealt with.

Either way it boils down to the same common-sense recognition, namely that individuals - and organizations - are necessarily limited in what they know how to do well. Indeed, the main interest of capabilities view is to understand what is distinctive about firms as unitary, historical organizations of co-operating individuals. p. 17

We should have an interface in the Compliance & Governance module that provides a user with the ability to oversee the operations being conducted in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. This interface should be called the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” and give its user access to the operational information that is being undertaken. There they can interact, if desired, and supervise or mentor the project manager to ensure that the objectives are met and the costs are maintained. All with the understanding of how these objectives can be achieved. And that is through enhanced coordination, not through incentives.

In saying this, it's more about governance then about supervision. You want to be able to effect change when things go wrong, and you want to identify when things go wrong quickly, however, you also don’t want to interrupt the day to day operations.

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.

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXIX (C&G Part XVIII)

One of the key changes that is made in the Preliminary Specification is the move away from the “high throughput production” model to the “decentralized production” model. We have discussed this throughout the various modules and now we want to discuss the governance aspect of producing oil or gas when it is known to be unprofitable. Through the changes that we have made in the Preliminary Specification. Shutting in of production causes the production and overhead costs to drop in line with the revenues from the well so that a lack of production does not create a loss. Producing at low price scenarios does however a create a loss. Therefore the firm should have in the Compliance & Governance module a strong governance model that enforces a discipline to ensure that production is curtailed when pricing drops below the margin. Professor Richard Langlois defines the two models in his book “The Dynamic of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler and the New Economy.”

In a world of decentralized production, most costs are variable costs; so, when variations or interruptions in product flow interfere with output, costs decline more or less in line with revenues. But when high-throughput production is accomplished by means of high-fixed-cost machinery and organization, variations and interruptions leave significant overheads uncovered. p.58

The amount of value that is destroyed during times when the natural gas or oil prices decline is significant. The response of the North American producers to this “phenomenon” is both amusing and startling. They have within their power to fix the situation, yet do absolutely nothing to mitigate the source of the problem or the severity of it. They are natural gas producers, don’t bother them with prices or pipelines or customers, or for that matter the business of the business. This is management’s way of listening to the market and acting accordingly.

What is needed is a new method to deal with the volatility in the oil and gas marketplace. This is only the beginning of price variances. The producers need the ability to curtail production when the prices drop below the margin as is proposed in the Preliminary Specification. This may run against the best interests of those that are charged with operating the firm. And therefore the decision may need to be made by those that are responsible for the governance of the firm. If you can limit the losses. Save the reserves for the day in which the prices will return a profit. The periods in which losses will occur will be less frequent and of less intensity.

But let's look at the larger picture. If everyone in the industry adopted this new discipline then there would be no downward spikes in pricing. If all of the marginal production was removed from the market, the prices would respond to the upside almost immediately. Placing a floor on prices at the higher costs of production. Producers like to think they have employed a high level of capital discipline in terms of their spending. What if they employed a high level of production discipline as well. Then they could assert that they were not reckless in incinerating capital through operating losses in the fashion the capital markets have come accustomed to.

In the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module we have the “Marginal Production Threshold Interface” which indicates which production is at the threshold of becoming marginal or is not earning a profit. In addition this is a collaborative interface that allows the producer to interact with the other participants in the Joint Operating Committee who collectively hold the decision rights to suspend production. It is there that the decision will be made. We will also establish an interface in the Compliance & Governance module and also call it the “Marginal Production Threshold Interface”. It will include a section where the CEO or COO has the authority, in cooperation with the partners in the Joint Operating Committee, to shut-in some production. Taking the decision out of those in operations and placing it in the executive is probably how most of the decisions will have to be made. It certainly isn’t being done in any form or fashion today is it.

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. 

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXVIII (A&S Part XV)

When users are in the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules they will be able to look at a new type of cost that we have recorded in the accounts of the firm and Joint Operating Committee. That is the costs associated with “Dynamic Transaction Costs” which are the unique costs that are incurred during times of change. Professor Richard Langlois described these costs in his article “Transaction Cost Economics in Real Time”.

Over time, capabilities change as firms and markets learn, which implies a kind of information or knowledge cost - the cost of transferring the firm's capabilities to the market or vice-verse. These "dynamic" governance costs are the costs of persuading, negotiating and coordinating with, and teaching others. They arise in the face of change, notably technological and organizational innovation. In effect, they are the costs of not having the capabilities you need when you need them. p. 99

The types of these costs will be varied and not necessarily be the same in all instances. To break these down into their types may be overkill from an accounting point of view when just putting them into an account called “Dynamic Transaction Costs” will do. And we have done that in all of the other modules of the Preliminary Specification. However, having the ability to further analyse these costs when the time comes, from the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules could lead to further insight and learning into the organizational changes that might, or should, be occurring.

Indeed, in cases in which systemic coordination is not the issue, the market may turn out to be the superior institution of coordination. In general, the capabilities view of the firm suggests that we look at firm and market as alternative and sometimes overlapping institutions of learning. p. 99

and

Economic progress, then, is for Marshall a matter of improvements in knowledge and organization as much as a matter of scale economies in the neoclassical sense. We can see this clearly in his 'law of increasing return,' which is distinctly not a law of increasing returns to scale: 'An increase of labour and capital leads generally to improved organization, which increases the efficiency of the work of labour and capital' (Marshall, 1961, IV. xiii,2 p. 318) p. 101

And maybe we need to have a page or screen in each of these two modules dedicated to breaking down these costs. Then a producer or Joint Operating Committee will have some point of reference to determine the state of change and its impact in terms of the costs, and types of costs, to the organization.

F.A. Hayek (1945, p. 523) once wrote that 'economic problems arise always and only in consequence of change.' My argument is the flip-side: as change diminishes, economic problems recede. Specifically, as learning takes place within a stable environment, transaction costs diminish. As Carl Dahlman (1979) points out, all transaction costs are at base information costs. And, with time and learning, contracting parties gain information about one another's behavior. More importantly, the transacting parties will with time develop or hit upon institutional arrangements that mitigate the sources of transaction costs. p. 104

Tomorrow we will begin our fourth or capabilities pass through the Compliance & Governance module.

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.

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXVII (A&S Part XIV)

We should also mention, with yesterday’s discussion of the accounting and administrative costs being charged to the Joint Operating Committees. That these accounting and administrative service providers would need to have extensive software built as part of the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. They too are a critical part of the efficiencies and effectiveness of the producers and Joint Operating Committees and therefore need to be included in the definition of this software. Today we are going to discuss the overall nature of the Preliminary Specification and how the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics users will need to look upon the data that is stored within the applications. The method that users will access this data is through ad-hoc queries and general inquiries that they will formulate over time. There will of course be opportunities for users to save and deploy those queries in a more structured approach within the module.

We are focusing the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee on its key competitive advantages. Those are its land and asset base and the earth science and engineering capabilities it holds. These are the things that differentiate them from other producers and how they produce value for their shareholders. Everything else is secondary. We have adopted what Professor Richard Langlois calls the “capabilities approach” in his paper “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization”.

However, a new approach to economic organization, here called "the capabilities approach," that places production centre stage in the explanation of economic organization, is now emerging. We discuss the sources of this approach and its relation to the mainstream economics of organization. p. 1

And we feel this can bring about a new level of competitiveness, one based on innovation, within the industry. As Professor Langlois notes in “Competition through institutional form: the Case of the Cluster Tools Standards”.

Industrial economists tend to think of competition as occurring between atomic units called "firms." Theorists of organization tend to think about the choice among various kinds of organization structures - what Langlois and Robertson (1995) call "business institutions.” But few have thought about the choice of business institution as a competitive weapon. p. 1

And it must be in the hands of the user. Whether that is the CEO of the producer, the Chief Engineer of the Joint Operating Committee or the accountant preparing the financial statements for the property. A decentralized and empowered workforce is the only manner in which to approach the future demands of the energy consumer. From Professor Langlois “Organizing the Electronic Century”.

… “if we can agree that the economic problem of society is mainly one of rapid adaptation to changes in the particular circumstances of time and place," he wrote, "it would seem to follow that the ultimate decisions must be left to the people who are familiar with these circumstances, who know directly of the relevant changes and of the resources immediately available to meet them. We cannot expect that this problem will be solved by first communicating all this knowledge to a central board which, after integrating all knowledge, issues its order. We must solve it by some form of decentralization" (Hayek 1945, p. 524). p. 15

Lastly we have used modularity to deconstruct and simplify both the Information Technology and the organization. This provides us with an efficiency of data between the modules and encapsulation of the roles and responsibilities within one module. For example all of the “land” is within the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module.

What makes decentralization economically effective is the possibility of a standard interface that allows the modules to coordinate with one another without communicating large volumes of information. This interface is the price system. The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action. In abbreviated form, by a kind of symbol, only the most essential information is passed on and passed on only to those concerned (Hayek 1945, pp. 526 - 527) pp. 15 - 16

We have come a long way for a relatively precise point. In the Preliminary Research Report which was entitled “Plurality Should Not Be Assumed Without Necessity” or Occam’s Razor. I also went on to describe it as Knoop & Valor [1997] did as “It’s not what you know that you do not know that hurts you. It’s what you do not know, that you do not know that will. It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to bring about a new order of things.” I should have heeded my own warning. But the point is that the unknown unknowns are what need to be discovered and the tools for doing that are the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules of the Preliminary Specification.

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.

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXVI (A&S Part XIII)

We have combined the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules into one discussion stream for purposes of the Preliminary Specification. The difference between the two modules is that the Performance Evaluation is a Joint Operating Committee facing module and the Analytics & Statistics module is a producer firm facing module. Both are inherently the same in terms of functionality and process management, however, the data and collaboration elements are fundamentally different. It will also be in these two modules that the move away from the “high throughput production” model to the “decentralized production” model that the Preliminary Specification is conducting will have an effect. In Professor Langlois book “The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler and the New Economy” he defines the differences between the two models.

In a world of decentralized production, most costs are variable costs; so, when variations or interruptions in product flow interfere with output, costs decline more or less in line with revenues. But when high-throughput production is accomplished by means of high-fixed-cost machinery and organization, variations and interruptions leave significant overheads uncovered. p.58

In previous modules we have discussed how the overhead costs of production and royalty accountants, and for that matter any accounting to do with operations, land administration, production administration and exploration administration would become variable costs that would only be incurred if there was production. How the further specialization and division of labor of these traditional departments provided a means for the oil & gas industry to have their accounting and administration prepared by service providers. This was an example of how the industry could have all of their production and overhead costs allocated to the revenues from production. When the wells were shut-in then these administrative and accounting costs would not be incurred and the decentralized production model would therefore be in place.

Both in the Analytics & Statistics and Performance Evaluation modules each Joint Operating Committee becomes a stand alone reporting entity. Each property should have financial accounting reports that are prepared monthly. These could be generated here in these modules. Having a balance sheet, income statement, and statement of changes prepared for the Joint Operating Committee and for the producers interest would provide real value for those trained in reading financial statements.

With the fine granularity of the data. That is to say the charges for the accounting and administrative services will be very precise, as will all the variable charges that will be charged under the “decentralized production” model. The assurance that all the accounting and administrative service providers have billed, and billed correctly for a month, will need to be automated to a certain level and that too can be done in these modules.

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.

The Preliminary Specification Part CCLXV (K&L Part XXXIII)

This will be the last post of our fourth or capabilities pass through the Knowledge & Learning module. It has been in the Research & Capabilities and the Knowledge & Learning modules that Professor Richard Langlois work has been of most value. We will continue on with the review of Professor Langlois in the Performance Evaluation, Analytics & Statistics and Compliance & Governance modules and then in the fifth pass we will be taking a different perspective on the Preliminary Specification. The fifth pass will combine two elements during its review. The first will be the application of Oracle’s Fusion technologies which are the base technologies of the Preliminary Specification. The second element is some of the more common components of an ERP system. We have covered off what an innovative ERP system looks like, we need to include how that innovation interacts with the day-to-day of an ERP system. So those will be the focus of the fifth pass through the specification. I am tentatively scheduling the sixth pass to be a deeper dive into the same elements as we may not be able to make sense of everything in the first pass and will need two runs through to be coherent.

If we go back to the previous modules we recall the discussion around moving from the “high throughput production” model to the “decentralized production” model that was being conducted in the Preliminary Specification. Essentially the “decentralized production” model has all of the costs, production and overhead, match the revenues. So when there was no production, there would be no costs associated with any shut-in production. The “high throughput production” model is something that the bureaucracy can do. It is their means of managing and is how they are able to provide value in the organization. That “high throughput production” is incapable of providing value today is a matter of the time and place that we find ourselves in. Using the “high throughput production” model requires the bureaucracy to summarily ignore the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the oil and gas industry. It can not do both, “high throughput production” requires the designation of operatorship be granted to one partner for control over the property.

Industrial structure is really about two interrelated but conceptually distinct systems: the technology of production and the organizational structure that directs production. These systems jointly must solve the problem of value: how to deliver the most utility to ultimate consumers at the lowest cost. Industrial structure is an evolutionary design problem. It is also a continually changing problem, one continually posed in new ways by factors like population, real income, and the changing technology of production and transaction. It was one of the founding insights of transaction-cost economics that the technological system does not fully determine the organizational system (Williamson 1975). Organizations — governance structures — bring with them their own costs, which need to be taken into account. But technology clearly affects organization. This is essentially Chandler’s claim. The large-scale, high-throughput technology of the nineteenth century “required” vertical integration and conscious managerial attention. In order to explicate this claim, we need to explore the nature of the evolutionary design problem that industrial structure must solve. p. 50

With the Preliminary Specifications adoption of the “decentralized production” model and the recognition of, and technical support of the Joint Operating Committee. The elements of change are in place. It is the culture of the industry to use the Joint Operating Committee, it is an industry that is based on partnerships and the closer we move to that culture the greater alignment (speed, innovation, and accountability) we will achieve. This next quote should be read twice with either the hierarchy or the Joint Operating Committee in mind.

And there are certainly examples of this. But it is also possible that a structure of organization can persist because of “path dependence.” A structure can be self-reinforcing in ways that make it difficult to switch to other structures. For example, the nature of learning within a vertically integrated structure may reinforce integration, since learning about how to make that structure work may be favored over learning about alternative structures. A structure may also persist simply because the environment in which it operates is not rigorous enough to demand change. And organizations can sometimes influence their environments — by soliciting government regulation, for instance — in ways that reduce competitive rigors. p. 58

This discussion elevates the importance of the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules in defining how the industry operates. These modules remove the task of how the industry is operated from the hands of the bureaucracy and moves the operations to the Joint Operating Committee. It is therefore a critical module.

Over time, two things happen: (a) markets get thicker and (b) the urgency of buffering levels off and then begins to decline. In part, urgency of buffering declines because technological change begins to lower the minimum efficient scale of production. But it also declines because improvements in coordination technology — whether applied within a firm or across firms — lower the cost (and therefore the urgency) of buffering. p. 78

As a point of interest when I read that last quote I became concerned for the Natural Gas business in North America. The size of the Natural Gas storage business has become so large as to dwarf any real purpose for its existence. The other aspect is, the storage business is no longer in the hands of the producers. How in a market economy will the producers ever get market prices for their product again?

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.