Final - Preliminary Specification - R&C

Introduction

We now move on to the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. This is a dual specification module in that it shares strong similarities with the Knowledge & Learning module. The difference is that the Research & Capabilities is a firm, or producer, facing module and the Knowledge & Learning module is a Joint Operating Committee module.
We discussed how the Research & Capabilities module would be used to help build value by managing the transition from the hierarchy to the aligned producer organization under the People, Ideas & Objects software. Where the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee were aligned with the hierarchies compliance and governance. Making this transition will create opportunities for people to make changes to the work that they do in order to be more efficient and effective. What and how the software will do this little bit of magic is best described in a McKinsey article. In a four part recommendation McKinsey sets out in broad strokes what is required.

• Streamlining and simplifying vertical and line management structures by discarding failed matrix and ad hoc approaches and narrowing the scope of the line manager's role to the creation of current earnings.

The process of using People, Ideas & Objects software will achieve all of these objectives. By aligning all of the Joint Operating Committee and the hierarchies frameworks, imposing the military chain of command and having the financial interests of the producers drive the management of the Joint Operating Committee we are “narrowing the scope of the line manager’s role to the creation of current earnings.” These are the focus of the Partnership Accounting, Accounting Voucher, Petroleum Lease Marketplace and Performance Evaluation modules.

• Deploying off-line teams to discover new wealth-creating opportunities while using a dynamic management process to resolve short and long term trade offs.

These are the critical new roles that are being discussed in these “new” modules “Research & Capabilities” and “Knowledge & Learning.” Providing valuable insight to their users about the business that is above the day to day noise. Where the long term vision of the organization can be set, executed and realized through these two advanced software modules.

• Developing knowledge marketplaces, talent marketplaces, and formal networks to stimulate the creation and exchange of intangibles.

Within the Preliminary Specification, if we include the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning marketplace definitions, we have five marketplace modules in People, Ideas & Objects. Marketplaces are things that people will be doing more of in terms of participation in the future. Computers can assist, but again are generally very poor at making decisions, bargaining, knowing what to do, etc. The other three marketplace modules in the Preliminary Specification include the Petroleum Lease, Resource and Financial Marketplaces.

• Relying on measurements of performance rather than supervision to get the most from self directed professionals.

We have already had a quick review of the Performance Evaluation and Analytics & Statistics modules. Handing the Performance Evaluation module to the team that is running the Joint Operating Committee will enable them to manage the property in the best possible fashion. They are going to be able to figure out what it is that makes the most sense in terms of value, and begin to generate more of it. It is as simple as that. Except it is a very complex business. And that’s why you have your best earth science and engineering staff on the job. And the best business / geological / engineering minds running the Research & Capabilities module.

It should be coming clearer that it is no longer the 20th century. That to manage an enterprise requires a different approach, and the first thing that is needed to manage that enterprise is the software to enable that approach. With real shortages in the quality human resources necessary to maintain the markets demand for energy, it will be the producer that is able to maintain a high performing organization based on criteria such as these.

McKinsey, The 21st Century Corporation

We went through the four points from the McKinsey article as to why we should use the Research & Capabilities module for the long term perspective of the innovative oil and gas producer. We now want to revisit the first point of that article and highlight the significance of the opportunity that is presented by separating the long term perspective into the Research & Capabilities module, and the day to day into the Knowledge & Learning module. In the McKinsey article it is noted;

The first design principle is to clarify the reporting relationships, accountability, and responsibilities of the line managers, who make good on a company's earnings targets, for all other considerations will get short shrift until short term expectations are met.

By making the Joint Operating Committee the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. By aligning the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee with the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy. By providing an extension of the governance structure over the partnership with the Military Command & Control Metaphor. We have isolated the Joint Operating Committee as the day to day operation of the oil and gas producer. This frees up the remaining portion of the producer to concern itself with the long term value generation of the firm.

Recall that these Joint Operating Committees are autonomous in the sense that they are focused on providing the greatest performance. They are driven through the Performance Evaluation module that allows them to determine where and how they can build the greatest value each month. Because they are operated by the partnership, which all the participants are motivated equally by financial gain, the producers will have faith that the “line managers will make good on a company's earnings targets.”

The Research & Capabilities module is looking at the interests the producer has in any number of Joint Operating Committees. This number may total into the thousands. To concern themselves with the operational performance of each would be a daunting and impossible task. And based on the previous paragraph their involvement is limited. However, there may be systemic corporate similarities that can be applied to each that bring value to the overall producer firm. Systemic similarities that can only be seen from the perspective of the firm, and in the long term. These are where the business value can be generated through the use of the Research & Capabilities module. McKinsey notes;

Dynamic management and improved collaboration, as we show later, are better ways of accomplishing the purposes of these ad-hoc structures. A company that aims to streamline its line management structures should create an effective enterprise wide governance mechanism for decisions that cross them, such as the choices involved in managing shared IT costs.

It is through an iterative and collaborative approach to dealing with the various Joint Operating Committees that the users of the Research & Capabilities module is able to extract the value in the long term. By passing on new innovations or the results of experiments for the JOC to implement. The ability to influence any and all variables and to see any aspect of the firm and to analyze it is the domain of this application module. To define it as a set of fixed functionality will ultimately be the result of what the user community is able to provide, however, I am certain that they will also recommend that the application module remain open to analyzing any and all data.

If we reduce the business of the oil and gas producer down to the activities of the Joint Operating Committee. And concern ourselves only with the day to day activities of the property then we can generally be satisfied that we will know where our next meal will come from. But what about everything else. This is the classic conflict that a business must satisfy, the struggle between the long and short term horizon of the business. How much should be sacrificed in the long term and how much should be sacrificed in the short term? It should be noted that the name of the module is Research & Capabilities, this discussion focuses on the capabilities component of the module.

What is the firm capable of and how can that capability be enhanced? And more importantly since we are so dependent on our partners in the Joint Operating Committee and the service industry how is this apparent contradiction resolved? The traditional steps of the producer was to build the in-house capability. The assumption that is used in People, Ideas & Objects is that the resource constraints do not permit the luxury of each producer building these capabilities. The need to collaborate with partners to build the capabilities needed for the Joint Operating Committee is how these needs are met.

But we are talking about more than just the capabilities that each Joint Operating Committee demands when we are talking about the capabilities of the producer firm and the use of the Research & Capabilities module. McKinsey put it well in this quotation.

Ongoing multi-year tasks such as launching new products, building new businesses, or fundamentally redesigning a company's technology platform usually call for small groups of full-time, focused professionals with the freedom "to wander the woods," discovering new, winning value propositions by trial and error and deductive tinkering.

We have detailed that the focus of the producer firm is on its asset base and its earth science and engineering capabilities. This area of focus of the Research & Capabilities module is therefore a key focus of the producer organization. We are not talking about the people that will be deployed in the day to day of the various Joint Operating Committees. These are the core scientists of the firm.

We discovered something very interesting in our research. When we deploy teams of people in a fashion like we are with People, Ideas & Objects use of the Joint Operating Committee. The earth science and engineering capabilities of each Joint Operating Committee will atrophy. They need to be fed a constant stream of new and innovative ideas and possibilities to remain “current” with the science. This of course has to be steered by the mother ship so as to not duplicate errors or replicate blind bunny trails unnecessarily in each and every Joint Operating Committee.

Now it may seem that I have contradicted myself by stating that the firm needs to develop the capabilities necessary “in-house.” But I didn't say that. The Research & Capabilities module should be considered to be from an industry perspective. That although each firm will have specific people defined to support each firms needed capabilities, the service industry will take on a greater role in providing much of the innovative capabilities that are developed through the mindset employed by the producer firms.

We’ve talked about the role the producer would have in determining the long term horizon of the firm. How the Research & Capabilities module would provide a window on the various Joint Operating Committees to provide the ability to apply systemic earth science and engineering innovations at each JOC without the risks of unnecessary duplications or repeated following of blind bunny trails. I now want to discuss the risks and rewards of the leakage of earth science and engineering information from the firm through the Research & Capabilities module. As it would be apparent that the level of discussion and collaboration through the partnerships in the Joint Operating Committees, through the industry itself and the service industry in particular would lead to significant leakage of the producers proprietary earth science and engineering knowledge, understanding and capabilities.

In the Preliminary Research Report we learned an interesting point about the producers proprietary earth science and engineering knowledge, understanding and capabilities.

In Brown & Duguid (1998) they make the following observations: “The leakiness of knowledge out of and into organizations, however, presents an interesting contrast to internal stickiness. Knowledge often travels more easily between organizations than it does within them. For while the division of labor erects boundaries within firms, it also produces extended communities that lie across the external boundaries of the firms. Moving knowledge among groups with similar practices and overlapping membership can thus sometimes be relatively easy compared to the difficulty in moving it among heterogeneous groups within the firm. Similar practice in a common field can allow ideas to flow. Indeed, it’s often harder to stop ideas spreading then to spread them.” (p. 102) p. 32

We all know this leakage of information to be inherently true. When someone discovers something that is “news” within the industry, it is generally well known within industry associations for the geologists or engineers as soon as it is known in the firm. It is either imputed through what is known, or the leakiness is as porous as it is. What is a producer firm to do to ensure that the information they have does not leak? I think that the point lies in the meaning of “capabilities”; which is “an aptitude that can be developed” or “knowledge begets capabilities, and capabilities begets action.” Simply it is not possible to stop the leakage. The question therefore becomes, is it best to develop your aptitude by curling up with a text book or to participate in a marketplace.

According to McKinsey the solution requires...

... a company must develop organizational overlays in the form of markets and networks that help its professionals work horizontally across its whole extent. These overlays make it easier for them to exchange knowledge, to find and collaborate with other professionals, and to develop communities that create intangible assets.

These tacit interactions are what are captured in the “Research” area of the Research & Capabilities module. Interaction with the larger communities to develop the knowledge and understanding around the science of oil and gas not only expands the capabilities of the producer firm but will also expand the overall science. We learned two other important points regarding innovation from Professor Giovanni Dosi in the Preliminary Research Report.

• That new science fuels new innovations, and new innovations fuel new science.
• Technical trade-offs facilitate the ability for industries to innovate on the changing technical and scientific paradigms.

People, Ideas & Objects research assumes that one technical trade-off in oil and gas is accurately reflected in the oil and gas commodity pricing. That these prices are providing the resources to fuel innovative oil and gas producers. Therefore the faster we iterate on the science and innovation, the more appropriate a producers strategy should be focused on a capabilities approach.

What evidence do we have that the transition from the way things are done today, to what is suggested in the People, Ideas & Objects Research & Capabilities module is valid? For the majority of producers it is a bit of a stretch that they will reorganize their firms in such a manner that will allow any “leakage” of proprietary capabilities from either the firm or the Joint Operating Committee. And that the parsing of the short and long term perspective across the JOC and the firm in the manner that has been discussed here. It certainly will take some convincing in order to accept.

First of all this intuitively makes sense. From the Joint Operating Committee alignment of all the frameworks to having them focus on performance as the driving motivation. This also begins to make sense when we have the Joint Operating Committee pursuing the optimal short term horizon. Making the operational decisions based on the collaborative understanding of the partnership that makes up the Joint Operating Committee. And the producer firm undertaking the long term horizon of the firm by interacting with the Joint Operating Committee, the remainder of the industry and the service industry to build the needed earth science and engineering capabilities needed for the firm. However, as possibly the strongest and easiest evidence that I can provide that this is substantially correct is this quotation from Professor Richard Langlois.

The question then becomes: why are capabilities sometimes organized within firms, sometimes decentralized in markets, and sometimes coordinated by a myriad contractual and ownership arrangements like joint ventures, franchisees, and networks? Explicitly echoing Hayek, Jensen and Meckling (1992, p.251) who point out that economic organization must solve two different kinds of problems: "the rights assignment problem (determining who should exercise a decision right) and the control or agency problem (how to ensure that self-interested decision agents exercise their rights in a way that contributes to the organizational objective)." There are basically two ways to ensure such a "collocation" of knowledge and decision making: "One is by moving the knowledge to those with the decision rights; the other is by moving the decision rights to those with the knowledge." (Jensen and Meckling 1992 p. 253). p. 9

To be specific, what we are doing in the Research & Capabilities module is “moving the knowledge to those with the decision rights.” And this is where the alignment under People, Ideas & Objects begins. What the bureaucracy is trying to do is “moving the decision rights to those with the knowledge.” And that is where the conflict is being created.

One minor point is that it would be logical to organize the information contained within this module by geologic zone. One of the key points about the use of this module is that the oil and gas producers receive 100% of the funds from the production of oil and gas. This entitles them to be the gatekeeper on all subsequent activity with respect to how that money is expended. And that includes the “what” and “how” of service industry product and service innovations and offerings. In today’s capital markets little is tolerated for research and development that is not directly funded by customers. To expect that the service industry will divert its profits, or will raise capital to fund its research and development efforts is foolish. It is clear that there has to be a direct link between the research that is undertaken by the service industry and the customers (the producers) wallet.

At the same time producers don’t want to participate when the cash is simply thrown against the wall to see if it will stick. There has to be a clear direction and understanding given to the service industry as to the direction and need that the oil and gas industry has. For the past few years, at least in Canada, we have heard many of the independent producers calling out the service industry as greedy and lazy and taking advantage of the situation in the field. Implying that the demand for service in the field is so strong that the only means to control it is for the service companies to increase the prices they charge. I see this situation occurring as a result of a lack of investment in innovation by the service industry.

This situation in the field has led to “cost control” measures by the producers that have further constrained the communications between the service industry and the producers. To suggest that the industry should be funding service industry innovations is the last thing that producers want to hear at this time. But it is the long term solution to producer problems. Micro-managing and cost-controlling will get the job done to the satisfaction of no one. As the demands in the industry increase, the ability to increase the capacity and capabilities will be further constrained because no one is working on those capacity related problems today. When the time comes, the problems of today will be even significantly larger tomorrow.

What is needed is the Research & Capabilities module of the People, Ideas & Objects application to provide the communication between the service industry, the entrepreneurs and the oil and gas producers. Communication about the needs of the producers, backed up with dollars that are willingly spent in order to develop the innovation, capacity, service or product. Providing direction to the service industry certainly sounds more constructive than calling names, controlling costs or micro-managing.

A Marketplace for Ideas

Let's review from a high level the process that is managed by the Research & Capabilities module of People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. The module has an interface that we will call the “Ideas Marketplace Blog” which is a marketplace where people, firms and service providers actively post their ideas for new products and services to help in the exploration and production of oil and gas. This marketplace provides the producer firm with the ability to explore new ideas and participate in their development with other producers. As time passes and the capabilities of the producer develops, they are able to deploy these enhanced capabilities through to their various Joint Operating Committees through interfaces in the Knowledge & Learning module. What we are creating in the Research & Capabilities module is a window on the marketplace of ideas.

Now what is so significant about ideas? First it's one of the few areas that computers are unable to provide any assistance in. People are the necessary ingredient in idea generation and application. The second important aspect of ideas is that we are going to need a lot more of them. The volume of ideas that are necessary today are an order of magnitude higher then what were required a generation ago. And the volume will need to be an order of magnitude higher in just a few years time. That is the nature of ideas.

If the innovative oil and gas producer is going to be iterating on the science and technology of the oil and gas industry. They will need to participate in a marketplace that is very dynamic. One that deals in every kind of idea, good, bad, brilliant, dumb or new. For if today it takes one idea to build one unit of value, tomorrow it will take two ideas to hold that value, and five ideas to build another unit of value. Such is the nature of where we are heading. If you’re not participating in the marketplace of ideas then you won't be participating in a market of value.

We are seeing the respect for ideas beginning to be reflected in the marketplace. Google’s acquisition of Motorola was a defensive move to shore up their patent portfolio. A $12 billion move. I have been overtly critical of the manner in which the oil and gas industry has treated the service industries Intellectual Property (IP). This must change and they must begin to respect the ownership and development of IP if they are to benefit from a marketplace of ideas. There is no one who will participate in a marketplace if they see that the oil and gas producers will not respect their IP. If they risk their IP being poached by their very customers, then they will not participate, and therefore the marketplace for ideas will stagnate. At which time, if that stagnation were to occur, the producers could call the service industry lazy and greedy.

Seeding the promising ideas with funding will be another role the producers will have to undertake. However, since they will be respecting the IP of the owners they will only have to fund one project, not several “me too” copycats. This will allow the owner of the product or service to fully leverage the oil and gas producer marketplace for their product or service and hence, not have to rely too heavily on initial funding.

In the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules of the Preliminary Specification we noted that the nature of the modules would enable the users to initiate, at any time, commercial actions on the ideas and activities in these modules. This discussion deals with those actions that can be generated from those ideas and activities and the importance of this module as an ERP system module.

ERP system modules have traditionally been focused on recording transactions and reporting those transactions to the various users of the information. To do that is still required of an ERP system but if that is all that we are doing then we are missing so much of what an innovative oil and gas producer needs. In the sense of a Research & Capabilities module, the need to deal in the marketplace of ideas is where the producer needs to have a presence and understanding of what is happening in the oil and gas and service industries. Participation is mandatory for success in a world where the speed of ideas and their implementation will be weeks and months, not years or decades.

An application that fulfills the needs of a producer in this manner has to have the input and contributions of all the other producers and the service industry as well. The applications installation is multiple industry, not just within one producer. The perspective of the user in some instances will be a window on the industries that are available to them. Now what is needed is the ability to have the systems that can initiate actions on those ideas and actions of interest to each of the users of the Research & Capabilities module.

We noted the ability to right click while in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules any idea or action of interest. This would bring up a menu of items where the user could select the ability to initiate a Work-Order, initiate an AFE with a partner in a Joint Operating Committee, etc. The point in mentioning this is from both McKinsey and Harvard Professor Carliss Baldwin. The first quote is from McKinsey.

Productive professionals make big enterprises competitive, yet these employees now increasingly find their work obstructed. Creating and exchanging knowledge and intangibles through interaction with their professional peers is the very heart of what they do. Yet most of them squander endless hours searching for the knowledge they need, even if it resides in their own companies and coordinating their work with others.

Once they find something of interest the user of the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules should have the full scope of an ERP application at their disposal. The ability to initiate any action of a commercial nature would take the idle capabilities of the producer firm or the Joint Operating Committee and put it to use. As Professor Baldwin notes.

Changing routines, competencies or capabilities based on knowledge must cause firms to have shifting knowledge boundaries. The span or scope of knowledge available to a firm will change over time as required by its changing activities. But theories based on knowledge cannot directly explain the location of transactions. First, the domain of transactions is a domain of action: goods are made; services are performed; compensation is paid and received. But actions enter the knowledge based theories only indirectly: knowledge begets capability and capability begets action. The actions themselves lie outside the scope of these theories. 

These quotes capturing the importance of embedding these two modules within the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. Without the ability to initiate the actions within the organizations the capabilities will be trapped. In a world where the software needs to be built to identify and support the organization first, these are important considerations.

Round 1, Management vs. the Internet

We live in interesting times. The Internet has had a remarkable impact on our lives in the past ten years. As we look forward, that impact has only begun. When we talk about the impact that the Internet will have on the capabilities of an oil and gas producer, we need to consider some critical factors in those capabilities. This discussion deals with those critical factors and how they are implemented in the People, Ideas & Objects Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification.

The purpose of a bureaucracy in the age of the Internet not only seems wasteful, it is. The pace of everything is slowed to a cumbersome and cluttered existence that defies common sense. The Preliminary Specification considers the Internet as an inherent given. Aligns the nine frameworks of the producer around the Joint Operating Committee. Automates the work that computers do best and keeps the work that humans do, the decisions, the ideas, and the collaborations front and center in the modules. To do otherwise would be a waste of the opportunity that is afforded to us by the Internet.

One of our top two research providers, Professor Richard Langlois wrote a book a few years ago that we reviewed as part of our research. The first chapter was entitled “Progressive Rationalization” and our quotes are from that chapter. In this first quote he notes the correlation between “new economic opportunities” such as the Internet and the “organizational structure.”

Economic growth is fundamentally about the emergence of new economic opportunities. The problem of organization is that of bringing existing capabilities to bear on new opportunities or of creating the necessary new capabilities. Thus, one of the principal determinants of the observed form of organization is the character of the opportunity – the innovation – involved. The second critical factor is the existing structure of relevant capabilities, including both the substantive content of those capabilities and the organizational structure under which they are deployed in the economy. p. 13

If we look at the first critical factor, the new economic opportunity, which in our case is the Internet. According to Langlois the “problem of organization is bringing existing capabilities to bear on new opportunities or of creating the necessary new capabilities.” The “character” of the Internet is that it enables the collaboration within the Research & Capabilities module as we have discussed to date. Recall in our recent discussion we noted that “knowledge beget capabilities and capabilities beget action.” The facilitation of knowledge and actions are the two areas where the Research & Capabilities module enable the user to interact and engage in the community, the producer firm and the industry.

The second critical factor that Langlois notes “is the existing structure of relevant capabilities.” And here the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification has a distinct advantage in that we are isolating the short and long term perspectives of the producer firm between the Joint Operating Committee and the producer firm itself. By using the Joint Operating Committee in this fashion we are building on that innovation by leveraging the innovation of the Internet.

In this last quote from Professor Langlois he reflects on centuries of historical change and the manner in which that change came about.

In highly developed economies, moreover, a wide variety of capabilities is already available for purchase on ordinary markets, in the form of either contract inputs or finished products. When markets are thick and market-supporting institutions plentiful, even systemic change may proceed in large measure through market coordination. At the same time, it may also come to pass that the existing network of capabilities that must be creatively destroyed (at least in part) by entrepreneurial change is not in the hands of decentralized input suppliers but is in fact concentrated in existing large firms. The unavoidable flip-side of seeing firms as possessed of capabilities, and therefore as accretions of habits and routines, is that such firms are quite as susceptible to institutional inertia as is a system of decentralized economic capabilities.

Economic change has in many circumstances come from small innovative firms relying on their own capabilities and those available in the market rather than from existing firms with ill-adapted internal capabilities. Chapter 5 will reconstruct the New Economy of the late 20th and early 21st centuries along exactly these lines, once again adding nuance and historical texture. If the antebellum period reflected the Invisible Hand of market coordination, and if the late 19th and early 20th centuries saw the rise of the Visible Hand of managerial coordination, then the New Economy is the era of the Vanishing Hand. p . 14

The battle lines have been drawn. Its the Internet vs. the bureaucracy. I have certainly tipped my hand as to who I think will win this war.

Professor Giovanni Dosi’s on Innovation

It is through Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” that we will view the Research & Capabilities module. A couple of things that jump out at me in the module are the division of labor between computers and humans. Formulating ideas, making decisions and collaborating are the activities that are captured in this module. Leaving the mundane transaction and data management tasks to the computers. This I think an appropriate division of labor, I wonder at times what SAP’s thinking is on this. Another aspect that caught my eye was Professor Richard Langlois comment that we are “moving the knowledge to those with the decision rights” as being the primary process that the module captures. And lastly, that a user can right click at any time within the module and initiate any standard ERP type of action on anything in the module. This being an extension of Professor Carliss Baldwin’s research that notes “knowledge begets capabilities and capabilities beget actions.”

To the topic of innovation, Professor Giovanni Dosi’s paper discusses the role of innovation in the market economy and assumes companies in a free market are willing to invest in science and technologies to advance the competitive nature of their product offering or internal processes. The investment in science and technologies is with the implicit expectation of a return on these investments, but also, to provide the firm with additional structural competitive advantages by moving their products costs and / or capabilities beyond that of the competition. Professor Dosi note:

Thus, I shall discuss the sources of innovation opportunities, the role of markets in allocating resources to the exploration of these opportunities and in determining the rates and directions of technological advances, the characteristics of the processes of innovative search, and the nature of the incentives driving private agents to commit themselves to innovation.

We discussed only a few days ago that the Accounting Voucher would enable the producer to charge the various joint accounts with the costs of their technical resources with the implicit assumption that they would generate a return on the investment in the firm's capabilities. We also discussed the differences between what is acceptable practice today (with overhead allowances) and the different positions that some might take on the topic. However, I think Professor Dosi’s point here has to be taken as the key criteria as to the direction the industry takes on the issue. You are investing to provide the firm with additional structural competitive advantages by moving their products costs and / or capabilities beyond that of the competitions. The ability to sustain the state of the art oil and gas capabilities on the basis of what a producer earns from oil and gas production is a direct result of those capabilities, however, shouldn’t the costs of those capabilities earn a return above and beyond what the oil and gas production provides?

It’s only reasonable that the producer firm is going to approach the operation of some technically difficult task with the appropriate capabilities. Innovation requires that the capabilities of the producer be the base on which the innovations can leverage. What Professor Dosi has defined in his research is the key factors that innovation requires. We will discuss these key factors and how they are integrated within the Research & Capabilities and other modules of the Preliminary Specification.

One housekeeping duty is to note that there is a “Capabilities & Stimuli” interface in the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module. This documents the contractual obligations that the producer is required to meet in terms of commitments to the various Joint Operating Committees that the producer is a participant in. And to leverage the working interest partners capabilities that are likewise legally committed. This interface is placed in the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module to document the legal obligations that are contractually defined. This interface should also be populated in the Research & Capabilities module.

We will now deal with the first of the three key factors of innovation, Professor Dosi notes:

The search, development and adoption of new processes and products in market economies are the outcome of the interaction between:

Capabilities and stimuli generated with each firm and within the industry of which they complete.

What you are capable of is wholly dependent on what has been purposely developed within your firm. These capabilities have developed over time and are able to be deployed repeatedly. As time passes further capabilities are developed and the firm becomes more capable through a variety of different means. The ability of the firm to develop these capabilities is limited by what the oil and gas service industry is capable of providing. If they have only x number of rigs available, then only so much work will be done. And if the rigs are only able to drill shallow wells then the science of the producer will be constrained by the capabilities of the service industry. Furthermore, if the producer is a state of the art earth science and engineering wonder in a sea of producers who are barely able to successfully drill shallow wells, then the state of the art producer is reduced to the same level of the others. The marketplace of the producers in terms of their technical resources and their capabilities have an enabling and constraining limit on what the producer is capable of. Lastly innovation is leveraged from this base.

The question therefore becomes how do we broaden the base of not only the producer but the service and oil & gas industries? Recall how the Research & Capabilities module has an "Ideas Marketplace" blog like interface where members of the industries can post ideas of products and services that might be of interest to the producer firms. Producers may then act to support these ideas with funding and support to develop the idea into a product or service to augment their capabilities. Recall the "Supplier Collaborative Interface" in the Resource Marketplace module that enables the industry as a whole to benefit from the lessons learned by each producer. The "Gap Filing interface" where the producer can anonymously publish where they see gaps in the service industries offerings. Enabling the service providers to prepare new products and services based on a further defined division of labor and specialization. Or how the information within the Research & Capabilities interface is organized on the basis of geological zone so that only those pertinent zones are populated to the individual Joint Operating Committees through the Knowledge & Learning module.

Recently in the Partnership Accounting module we discussed the accounting attributes of the Work Order system in forming working groups amongst industry participants. These could be informal working groups formed to study some geology or engineering situation among interested producers. The ability to strike these groups, participate in them and develop further capabilities as a result of these studies is a critical aspect of how the producers will develop their capabilities. Since the costs and the results are shared the industry as a whole advances. Leaving the producer open to further potential innovations. I see this as an area that will increase in terms of activity, if, the accounting logistics and bureaucratic nightmare that they create can be dealt with in the manner that the Partnership Accounting modules Work Order does.

The second key factor that Professor Giovanni Dosi defines as necessary is as follows.

The search, development and adoption of new processes and products in market economies are the outcome of the interaction between:

Broader causes external to the individual industries, such as the state of science in different branches, the facilities for the communication of knowledge, the supply of technical capabilities, skills, engineers etc.

Again these only make sense in terms of being critical to enabling the capabilities of the producer firm. The question becomes is how does the Research & Capabilities module and the Preliminary Specification specifically deal with these key factors to enhance innovation?

The first key factor that I want to address is the “supply of technical capabilities, skills, engineers etc.” That raising the quantity and quality of the earth science and engineering technical resources of the industry is possibly one of the three top issues of the industry. How does the Research & Capabilities module specifically increase the supply of these resources? As we have stated here many times the need to rely on the standard economic tools of an enhanced division of labor and specialization are the keys to solving this problem.

If we look at the way the industry is structured today, with each producer building the capabilities needed to address every possible contingency within their organization. The overbuilding of capabilities is the result and this surplus capacity is left unused and unusable. Each producer pursuing the same strategy leaves a large surplus capacity that is unused and unusable on an industry wide basis. The pooling concept that People, Ideas & Objects has developed within the Preliminary Specification. Where producers of a Joint Operating Committee are able to pool their technical resources to meet the properties demands. Eliminates the overbuilding of capacities in each of the producer firms, and enables the producers to deploy the formerly unused and unusable surplus capacity.

That’s the first element of the division of labor and specialization that is inherent in the Preliminary Specification. The second element deals directly with the ability to organize the technical resources in a manner that deals with how the “bread and butter” geology and engineering is done in the industry. With a dedicated software development capability such as that which is People, Ideas & Objects competitive offering, the ability to organize new service based offerings to meet the demands of the industry's bread and butter earth science and engineering demands would now be possible. The expansion of the division of labor and specialization will therefore increase the throughput of the industry from the same volume of resources, and also enhance the quality of the resources. As we have stated many times here at People, Ideas & Objects, software will define and support the future division of labor and specialization.

Regarding the “facilities for the communication of knowledge” as a key factor of innovation. The Research & Capabilities and the Knowledge & Learning modules are collaborative information systems that are “industry-wide” in their implementation. A review of the many interfaces that were mentioned here recently showed that the development and sharing of knowledge, which are critical for the development of the individual producers capabilities and innovativeness, are systemic throughout this module.

Lastly I would ask the user community if we need to develop an interface in the Research & Capabilities module that allows the producer to interact with the academic and research areas of the earth science and engineering disciplines. It would seem to me to be a worthwhile addition however, the user community may have some specific ideas on what should be included.

We now want to document the last of the key factors that Professor Giovanni Dosi states are necessary to support innovation. And then begin a discussion on these key factors and how they are implemented in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification.

The search, development and adoption of new processes and products in market economies are the outcome of the interaction between:

Additional issues include the conditions controlling occupational and geographical mobility and or consumer promptness / resistance to change, market conditions, financial facilities and capabilities and the criteria used to allocate funds. Microeconomic trends in the effects on changes in relative prices of inputs and outputs, including public policy. (regulation, tax codes, patent and trademark laws and public procurement.)

It's only logical that innovation will spring from advanced markets with labor mobility, legal protection and capital markets. It's one thing to have these facilities provided, its another to have them aligned within the organization. With People, Ideas & Objects we are aligning the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation and strategic frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee with the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy. This alignment permits the producer firm and the Joint Operating Committee to attain greater speed, innovation and accountability as a result.

What these key factors reflect is that the innovative oil and gas producer must first of all be capable. Innovation leverages the capabilities of the service industry, the producer marketplace and the greater market makeup. For the producer to attain their highest level of capabilities is the objective of the Research & Capabilities module. Each producer will be able to attain their own specific level of capabilities, and that level will be dependent on these key factors. Not all producers are built the same. The ability therefore to achieve state of the art capabilities and highly innovative practices are not something that are at risk in terms of being “copied” by other producers. Therefore a producer's willingness to participate in the collaborative environment created in the Research & Capabilities module would not risk any proprietary competitive advantage. On the contrary, based on these key factors, non-participation would limit the competitive advantage.

This environment is the polar opposite of the manner in which the industry operates today. Certainly there are high levels of joint ventures in operation, however, those are designed to mitigate financial risk more then anything else. And I am not suggesting a different posture be taken in terms of the risk profile of the industry. Only that a more open collaborative earth science and engineering level of discussion and participation is necessary for the industry to move to the next level of performance. One that enables the key factors that have been discussed here, interact with the highly aligned and innovative oil and gas producer.

I want to take a look at Professor Giovanni Dosi’s “key factors” in the context of the scenario that we used recently during our review of the Partnership Accounting module. Recall that we had a number of producers who were joining together through the Work Order to participate in an engineering study. This was discussed in the Partnership Accounting module to highlight the manner in which it eliminated the logistical accounting difficulties that impede the development of these working groups. I want to discuss how the efforts of that working group are added to the capabilities of the producer and are managed in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification.

Upon completion of the working group the producer firm will have a unit of knowledge that has been developed from the efforts of the group. Professor Carliss Baldwin provides us with some clarity here with her “knowledge begets capabilities, and capabilities beget action” comment. What is needed is for the producer to have a central repository for the knowledge that is accumulated through the various working groups and other “key factors” in which they acquire that knowledge. This will be called the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” in the Research & Capabilities module and will detail the source of the knowledge, the key factor, how it was acquired, and what it involves will be captured within a wiki style interface. This interface is also sorted by geological zone and populated to the Knowledge & Learning module for the Joint Operating Committee, based on what geological zones they produce from. Organizing a firms and Joint Operating Committees capabilities is the beginning of developing, deploying and effectively managing them.

Within any module of the People, Ideas & Objects application the user will be able to right click their mouse and select from a sub-menu of actions. These actions will include the ability to begin a Work Order, raise an AFE, prepare a Joint Venture Agreement etc. If the user can take action on the capabilities listed within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” then we have achieved the process that Professor Baldwin states is necessary. Having this information centralized for the producer, and the specific information for the Joint Operating Committee helps to concentrate the knowledge within one location within the firm. There will be little confusion as to where to find the answer to a specific question. When the user finds what they are looking for, the detail of the knowledge or capability should be specific enough as to define a process as to how it is implemented. Understanding that knowledge is never static, the ability to update the information with lessons learned would be part of the users responsibility. Recall this update from lessons learned is also done for the Joint Operating Committee in the Knowledge & Learning module.

The ability to annotate and reference the material within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” would make this more usable. However, with the tools that are available today, such as search, make the information more valuable. What is truly valuable is the types of tools that will be available tomorrow. We are beginning to see some of these tools enter the consumer space with the iPhone’s SIRI virtual assistant. The first step however will be to acquire the data and make it actionable through the ERP system of People, Ideas & Objects. Then we will be able to add these tools easily as they become available in the future.

If all that we were to do with the capabilities aspect of the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. Was to document the capabilities as in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” then we would be wasting a lot of people’s time. The purpose in documenting the capabilities is so that we can deploy them, and that brings in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” which is the topic of discussion here.

Ideally I see the ability of a firm to deploy their capabilities as a key competitive advantage. The organization of that competitive advantage will be the focus of the management of the firm. It should also be noted that there is a similar “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Knowledge & Learning module for the Joint Operating Committee. The analogy that I would like to use and develop is directly applicable to the game of American football. Where the coach can call in a play and the team is able to execute that play based on their known capabilities, roll and skills on the team. I want to draw a direct analogy for the person who plans and calls on the capabilities of the firm or JOC in the “Planning & Deployment Interface.”

First we need to bring in the Military Command & Control Metaphor and understand that the role of the individual, as designated in that structure becomes a critical part of the planning and deployment of the firm or JOC’s capabilities. There can be only one Quarter Back and you need many Down Lineman. The filling of the various roles in order to take the actions that are needed is as important as the capabilities themselves. The MCCM imposes a chain of command across the multiple producers represented in the JOC, or firm and enables them to operate the pooled resources of these firms.

The “Planning & Deployment Interface” will take the three critical aspects of the firm / JOC and arrange them within a web like interface for the user to develop the actions they desire. The three critical aspects are the people represented in the MCCM, the capabilities and the time frame. Having selected the personnel that you want to execute the action that you have in mind, their available time becomes known to the interface from each individual's calendar. Selecting the capabilities from the Research & Capabilities, or Knowledge & Learning, module is then drawn into the interface. From there the user is able to “process” the information and based on the variables given determine when the work would be able to be completed. Then they may select additional resources to fill deficiencies in areas where the capabilities suggest they need more resources, conduct more studies to determine certain unknowns or proceed with the project.

Upon proceeding with the project the people who were selected by the user in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” are given the job to do. They are provided with an understanding of what and how and who will be involved in completing the project. Not that it should be a simple matter of execution, but they should at this time have everything provided within the “package” they receive from the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” That package should be comprehensive and detailed such that it is all that they need to be able to focus on the successful completion of the task. This is how I see the interface operating in the Research & Capabilities module.

The quality of the documentation of the capabilities will be the determining factor in how successful the project will be. If the detail contained in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is of rich media, detailed and provides the user with a good understanding of what is required then the communication from what is expected and what is understood is not at variance. The people will be able to see clearly what it is that the project is about and how they are expected to complete the task.

The innovative and capable oil and gas producer is in need of the ability to document and deploy their capabilities in an efficient and effective manner. Here is a way in which the deployment is planned and executed with an understanding or “meeting of the minds” based on the quality of the documentation in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” It being not just a repository of data that might be used someday by someone. But a living source of quality information in which the producer or JOC depends on to make sure that the execution of their projects are successful.

We continue on with the “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. This interface would also be available to the Joint Operating Committee through the Knowledge & Learning module. I want to discuss the general operation of the interface and how users will interact with the information contained within it.

Who ever it is that implements the project through the “Planning & Deployment Interface” will be selecting the various capabilities documents from the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” When they do this they will be able to ensure that the capabilities they select reflect the “final” status necessary for the project. If there is further documentation that needs to take place or more work is needed to advance the state of the capabilities that are selected, these attributes can be added. This would have the effect of keeping the documentation up to the state of the capability within the firm or the Joint Operating Committee. Recipients of the information, once the “Planning & Deployment Interface” was processed, would be able to compare the capabilities information they received with the previous version they viewed, and determine quickly how the capability has changed from that previous version. Then they could assess what impact and consideration that change would have on their portion of the task and if they were to have any issues as a result.

Just as with the selection of the various capabilities the resource selection would have any updated information regarding the capabilities of each individual. If the completion of a course or program, the successful implementation of other capabilities etc would be available to the user who initiates the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” This information could be incredibly detailed and include the contributions that the individual made to the “Lessons Learned Interface” in both the Knowledge & Learning, and Research & Capabilities modules. Their performance reviews from previous tasks and any comments about the role they undertook in previous assignments. This information should be available for in-house staff, resources that are pooled through the various Joint Operating Committees that a firm participates with, any suppliers and vendors or contractors that the firm or JOC may have hired to work on the task.

The timing of the project and its completion are somewhat flexible based on the number of resources that are put on the project. This makes for a bit of a paradox, as if the team gets too large you lose the cohesiveness that the team needs to rely upon. Understanding that the people that are resourced into these tasks are probably assigned to multiple projects, and their participation is somewhat constrained by these limits, the time line may reach beyond what is initially the target.

Lastly the “Planning & Deployment Interface” has been about the known knowns to this point. There are a variety of known unknowns and unknown unknowns. To document these, if possible, is the role of the team members once the project interface has been processed and assigned. Recall that Professor Dosi states “In very general terms, technological innovation involves or is the solution to problems.” Dosi goes on to further define this as “In other words, an innovative solution to a certain problem involves “discovery” (of the problem) and “creation” since no general algorithm can be derived from the information about the problems. Solutions to technological problems involve the use of information derived from experience and formal knowledge. It is the specific and un-codified capabilities, or tacit-ness” as Professor Dosi describes “on the part of the inventors who discover the creative solution.” A section of the interface should be set aside where the team can collaborate on these points and provide some innovative solutions for the producer or JOC.

It is therefore asked specifically, how can the knowledge, information and capability of oil and gas firms solve the technical and scientific problems of the future? How can a firm more effectively employ its capability to solve problems and facilitate the discovery of new problems and creation of their solutions? I think the development of the “Planning & Deployment Interface” as described here would provide the producer and Joint Operating Committee with these sought after abilities.

People, Ideas & Objects software application modules enable the producer firms and Joint Operating Committees to focus on their core competitive advantages. These being the land & asset base, and the earth science and engineering capabilities of the innovative oil and gas producer. The Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification is the key module for the innovative producer to focus on their core competitive advantages. We have been discussing the “Planning & Deployment Interface” of the module and now we want to discuss how the producer maintains the pace of change in the underlying sciences and technologies.

The simple answer to this question is that the producer and particularly the Joint Operating Committee will not have the distraction of the long term acquisition of scientific and engineering research affect the day to day implementation of the knowledge of the firm or Joint Operating Committee. Recall at the beginning of this modules review we defined the time horizons for the Research & Capabilities module, and the Knowledge & Learning module, as the long term and short term respectively. The Research & Capabilities is about the acquisition of capabilities and their documentation, and the Knowledge & Learning is about their implementation and execution. The fact that there is a “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Research & Capabilities module may lead to some confusion, however, it is there as there are times in which the producer firm needs to implement the capabilities that it has for its sole benefit.

This separation of the time horizon for the Research & Capabilities to take the long term perspective, provides the appropriate mindset for it to focus on the overall development of the earth science and engineering disciplines. The ability of the producer to match the pace of change in the underlying sciences and mapping the necessary changes within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” will communicate the changes through to the organization to the various Joint Operating Committees that need that information on those capabilities. These changes and the communication of the changes to the appropriate people in a timely fashion will provide a means of increased performance for the producer and JOC. Providing a foundation for the producer to further build and implement their competitive advantages of earth science and engineering capabilities.

Restating for clarity purposes. That is how the Research & Capabilities module enables the producers to develop, implement and integrate advanced capabilities within their organization. The research undertaken by the firm should not interrupt the day to day of the operation. However, when the research augments the firms capabilities the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is updated for that information. The capabilities as they are listed in the“Dynamic Capabilities Interface” will be selected in the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” With these newly augmented capabilities, they will be deployed through to the Knowledge & Learning module, or in the case of work being done by the sole producer the Research & Capabilities module where they can be used and reused by the organization. If the research conducted by the firm is unresolved or undetermined in its conclusion then it would not belong in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” If it remained unresolved or undetermined then it would indicate that further work was required and therefore remain open in a Work Order for completion or resolution.

Where and How Innovation is Implemented

I want to reinforce the point that innovation will develop from the interactions and collaborations in the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” We noted that the people assigned to the project would discuss the project and raise any issues that they may have and innovation would stem from these interactions. This process that is captured in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” is how the Preliminary Specification reduces innovation to a defined and replicable process.

Professor Dosi notes that innovation is developed through the interactions between the “capabilities and stimuli” and “broader causes external to the individual industries such as the state of science.” These are captured in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” (capabilities and stimuli) and the Work Order system (state of science) of the Preliminary Specification. As time passes the producer augments their capabilities with the findings from their research undertaken in the various Work Orders that are issued. Capabilities are implemented in the day to day activities that the firm is involved in. It is the interaction within the firm and JOC, and the broader causes that create the innovations. But there’s more.

We take the concept of a trajectory, define it, and apply it to oil and gas. The definition of a technological trajectory is the activity of technological process along the economic and technological trade offs defined by a paradigm. Dosi (1988) states “Trade-offs being defined as the compromise, and the technical capabilities that define horsepower, gross takeoff weight, cruise speed, wing load and cruise range in civilian and military aircraft.” People, Ideas & Objects assumes the technical trade-off in oil and gas is accurately reflected in the commodity pricing. Higher commodity prices finance enhanced innovation. These “trade-offs” are very much an engineering approach and therefore I want to reiterate the point that they are “defined as the compromise, and the technical capabilities.”

These trade-offs facilitate the ability for industries to innovate on the changing technical and scientific paradigms. Crucial to the facilitation of these trade-offs is a fundamental component that spurs the change and is usually abundant and available at low costs. For innovation to occur in oil and gas, People, Ideas & Objects would assert that the ability to seek and find knowledge, and to collaborate are two “commodities” that are abundant today. With their inherent low direct costs, knowledge and collaboration are the triggers for a number of technical paradigms which will provide companies with fundamental innovations.

Therefore the ability to collaborate in the “Planning & Deployment Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module is critical to the innovativeness of the producer firm. And by extension, this would also apply to the Joint Operating Committee through the “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Knowledge & Learning module. Innovation is as much an engineering discipline as it is anything else. That is how we can reduce it to a defined and replicable process.

Every organization has to deal with the two distinct and differing types of work that need to be done. Simply the two types of work are the need to execute and the need to develop the firm's capabilities for the future. These two roles have been separated in the Preliminary Specification with the Knowledge & Learning module, or Joint Operating Committee, concerning itself with execution. And the Research & Capabilities module, or producer firm concerned with developing its capabilities. This division of labor and specialization regarding these two types of work is the topic of discussion.

We have noted that innovation was in many ways an engineering approach to problem identification and resolution. We however want to focus these innovation efforts in one area of the firm. Making sure that they are concentrated where they are most useful and the least harmful. And that is the “Dynamic & Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module. It is at that location that the focus can be on innovation without the impact affecting the day to day operations of the Joint Operating Committees. Only when an innovation is proven to be worthwhile should it be written up as a new capability in the Dynamic Capabilities Interface, and therefore populated into the Knowledge & Learning module for use in the day to day of the Joint Operating Committees. Professor Giovanni Dosi notes;

Organizational routines and higher level procedures to alter them in response to environmental changes and / or to failures in performance embody a continuous tension between efforts to improve the capabilities of doing existing things, monitor existing contracts, allocate given resources, on the one hand, and the development of capabilities for doing new things or old things in new ways. This tension is complicated by the intrinsically uncertain nature of innovative activities, notwithstanding their increasing institutionalization within business firms. p. 1133

These support the “how to do things” (the JOC) and “how to improve them” (the producer firm). This dichotomy reflects the challenge of improving the processes and products through trial and error, with heavy emphasis on the error. The ability to accurately predict the success or failure of a new idea contains inherent high risks and hence high rewards. This is one of the constraining factors in implementing innovative thinking, in that no one wants to be proven wrong. Whereas, even if the idea fails to test the theory, the failure may ultimately lead to and may be one of the keys to discovery.

By containing the innovation within the producer firm in the manner that the Research & Capabilities “Planning & Deployment Interface” does. Limits the contamination that might occur if innovation were attempted in the areas where execution is expected. This division of labor is necessary within the oil and gas firm. As we know there are two types of people, those who are able to function best in either of these two environments. Any time these people are asked to operate in the environment that they are not oriented to, they feel uncomfortable and perform poorly.

This maybe shows a contradiction in the People, Ideas & Objects software. We assert that the software aligns the Joint Operating Committees legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, strategic and innovation frameworks. This claim that the innovation framework is part of the Joint Operating Committee is consistent with the fact that once the producer has proven the innovation is valid, then the Joint Operating Committee is the means in which it is implemented and executed through the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.”

Continuing on with our innovation review of the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. We note that the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” enabled the innovative oil and gas producer to isolate the innovation activities within one area in their firm. This enabled the various Joint Operating Committees to focus on execution of what was known, which of course included what was proven new and innovative. We want to talk about the uncertainty and risk associated with innovative search. Something that I think that most producers are familiar with, however, something that will become more commonplace as the demand for innovation by the producer increases.

What is clear to me is the role that software will play in the enabling of innovation within the oil and gas firm. Throughout this discussion in the Preliminary Specification it is evident that software plays a critical role in the future oil and gas firm. Software is able to define and support the quantifiable and replicable processes of innovation. For the oil and gas industry to conduct any level of innovation without having the software, as defined here by People, Ideas & Objects, will be leaving the innovations outcome to chance. Such is the nature of software in the 21st century.

Whether it is geological or engineering in nature, the pursuit of these sciences bring to the oil and gas business certain elements of risk and uncertainty. Add to this the commercial nature of the oil and gas business and you have an atmosphere where innovation is for those who can take the heat. Professor Dosi suggest this is the appropriate environment for innovation.

I suggest that, in general, innovative search is characterized by strong uncertainty. This applies, in primis to those phases of technical change that could be called pre-paradigmatic: During these highly exploratory periods one faces a double uncertainty regarding both the practical outcomes of the innovative search and also the scientific and technological principles and the problem-solving procedures on which technological advances could be based. When a technological paradigm is established, it brings with it a reduction of uncertainty, in the sense that it focuses the directions of search and forms the grounds for formatting technological and market expectations more surely. (In this respect, technological trajectories are not only the ex post description of the patterns of technical change, but also, as mentioned, the basis of heuristics asking “where do we go from here?”) p. 1134

Let's be clear, the uncertainty resides in both the scientific and business realms. I am not of the opinion that the two can be separated, as is done in other systems such as SAP. This is maybe why the industry has been poorly served, in my opinion, by the business systems that operate today. They don’t recognize the innovative and science basis of the business and therefore are unable to support an innovative oil and gas industry. If the commodity prices are allocating the financial resources to fuel innovation. The industry will need to have the systems and procedures installed in order to manage the innovation. Systems such as described here. With the low costs of knowledge and collaboration being the two elements that affect the technological trajectories, having interfaces such as the “Planning & Deployment Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module will be a necessity.

However, even in the case of “normal” technical search (as opposed to the “extraordinary” exploration associated with the quest for new paradigms) strong uncertainty is present. Even when the fundamental knowledge base  and the expected directions of advance are fairly well known, it is still often the case that one must first engage in exploratory research, development, and design before knowing what the outcome will be (what the properties of a new chemical compound will be, what an effective design will look like, etc.) and what some manageable results will cost, or, indeed, whether very useful results will emerge. p. 1135

We now turn to the research area of the Research & Capabilities module in the Preliminary Specification. What we are particularly interested in, is to take control of the financial costs of the innovative activities that are being conducted within the producer firm. A firm of any size would have a variety of projects being conducted. With the volume becoming unmanageable quite quickly if there was no control over the amount spent and the type of activity. There are cost controls that are set in place in the People, Ideas & Objects systems like AFE’s and Work Orders, and these will sponsor most of the research undertaken in the firm. The interface that we are talking about does not replace those, it only centralizes the information for a clearer understanding of the activity and its funding.

Your firm may become involved in many projects that seek to find new knowledge and information regarding the oil and gas business. Some of these activities may be rather large and will certainly be the focus and will have no difficulty in attracting the attention of the firm. Some however may be small and will be important from the perspective that the information is just as pertinent to the firm, but don’t attract the attention. Nonetheless, this information needs to be included in the day to day of each and every operation of your firm, and as such needs to be documented in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” How does the firm manage the various projects within a firm to ensure that the money spent and all of the projects are documented within the capabilities of the firm?

Within the Research & Capabilities module we will have the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” that will assist in dealing with the costs of innovation and the volumes of projects the firm is involved in. If an AFE is raised with some element of the costs including the partnership doing some joint research or innovative activity, this activity should be populated in the “Research Budget Allocation Interface.” Or, if a Work Order is raised to conduct some study, that too will be populated into the “Research Budget Allocation Interface.” The purpose of this interface is to ensure that there is no duplication of the research undertaken, if there is then the costs could be saved. It is also to document the ongoing status of the project. And ensure that the results of the project are documented within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module.

In general, each organizational arrangement of a firm embodies procedures for resource allocation to particular activities (in our case, innovative activities), and for the efficient use of these resources in the search for new products, new processes, and procedures for improvements in existing routines; however, the specific nature of these procedures differs across firms and sectors. For example, the typical degrees of commitment of resources vary by industry and so do the rates at which learning occurs. I now turn to the interpretation of these phenomena. p. 1135

Although this may appear like a simple interface, in the proper hands it would be a very powerful tool. It would provide a global view of the firms activities in the area of innovation and show the overall progress that the firm was making. It would also show where unrelated innovations might occur. Lastly, and here’s the real kicker, it might show where some opportunities lay. Professor Dosi (1988) states that profit motivated agents must involve both “the perception of some sort of opportunity and an effective set of incentives.” (p. 1135) Professor Dosi introduces the theory of Schmookler (1966) and asked “are the observed inter-sectoral differences in innovative investment the outcome of different incentive structures, different opportunities or both”? (p. 1135) Schmookler believed in differing degrees of economic activity derived from the same innovate inputs.

The “Research Budget Allocation Interface” would provide a window on both the “different incentive structures and different opportunities within the producer firm. Making for a powerful tool in terms of guiding the innovative oil and gas producer.

Our discussion of the Research & Capabilities “Research Budget Allocation Interface” offered the innovative oil and gas producer the opportunity to control the costs of the research and innovation conducted within their firm. We know from Professor Giovanni Dosi that businesses commit to innovation as a result of both the exogenous scientific factors and endogenous accumulated capabilities developed by their firms. We have discussed in fairly good detail how the capabilities are handled in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. I want to continue to discuss how the research end of the module is managed.

With the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” we are able to provide a global view of the capabilities that the firm have under development. As was mentioned, this interface will provide the user with the ability to see areas that might otherwise fall through the cracks, so to speak. What is needed now is a similar interface that would give a view of the research that is being undertaken in the scientific arenas that enable the producer to “commit to innovation as a result of exogenous scientific factors.”

It might be important to quickly recall the major processes that are being managed in the Research & Capabilities module. We have the “Ideas Marketplace Blog” providing the environment where the service industry is actively developing new and innovative products and services with input from the producers. We have the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” where the firm is documenting what it is capable of and can achieve. These capabilities are deployed through the “Planning & Deployment Interface” in the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning modules and lastly we have the “Research Budget Allocation Interface.” There are more processes under management in the Research & Capabilities module, I only wanted to highlight the pertinent ones for the discussion that follows here on the scientific nature of the business.

Professor Dosi concludes that scientific input into the innovation process is evidence of the importance of factors exogenous to competitive forces among private economically motivated actors. This is subject to two important qualifications.

• Science and Technology are self-fulfilling in their developments.
• Scientific advances play a major direct role, especially at an early phase of development of new technological paradigms. p. 1136

These points support Dosi’s (1988) assertion that “general scientific knowledge yields a widening pool of potential technological paradigms,” where the greatest value is attained in the earlier stages. Professor Dosi analyzes the specific mechanisms through which a few of these potential paradigms are actually developed economically, subsequently applied, and that often have become dominant in their industry. The process of selection depends on the following factors.

The nature and interests of the bridging institutions between pure research and economic applications. (p. 1136)

• Institutional factors that drive the technology or science, such as (the military) (p. 1137)
• The selection criteria of markets and or techno-economic requirements of early users. (p. 1137) (NASA, Pentagon the FDA and Nuclear Reactors for the Navy.)
• Trial and error associated with the Schumpterian entrepreneurship. 

There is little doubt in my mind that we need an interface here. An interface that is similar to the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” would be appropriate. And maybe we only need to establish a second “page” within that interface. One for the internal or endogenous budget items and one for the exogenous budget items. The key here is to note that the greatest value is attained in the earlier stages. And that seems somewhat intuitive doesn’t it?

I want to continue on with our discussion of the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” and the two “pages” format. Recall that one page would be for the endogenous developed capabilities and the other for the exogenous scientific findings. What I want to discuss is the process that the user of this interface will be involved in in documenting the capabilities from the research that is being conducted within the firm and the greater scientific community. By way of the football analogy that we raised earlier, I want to show how this documentation would be done.

Ultimately the objective of the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” is to augment the firm's “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” or to enhance the firm's overall capabilities. The Dynamic Capabilities Interface documents what the firm is capable of and is in turn populated, through the Knowledge & Learning module, to the various Joint Operating Committees. And then based on geological zones and other criteria that are applicable to the property. The user select the pertinent capabilities that are needed. At which time the people that are assigned the work at the Joint Operating Committee are able to determine the state of the capabilities of the firm, and apply them to their work. The football analogy would come into play here in that the design of a play is committed to writing in which the team studies it, and each team member learns their role, and then executes the play in the manner in which it was designed.

As the firm continues on over time, research from the endogenous and exogenous areas become innovations that populate the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” which in turn populate the various Joint Operating Committees. This is the process of how I see the innovations developed within the firm and elsewhere are implemented in the innovative oil and gas firm. Professor Dosi (1988) continues on to assert that much of the innovativeness of a firm is dependent on technology more than science, and is based on several implications. The first implication being the net benefactor of the cumulativeness, tacitness and technological knowledge implies that “innovation and the capabilities for pursuing them are to an extent local and firm specific.” Secondly, the “opportunity for technological advances in any one economic activity can also be expected to, and constrained by, the characteristics of each technological paradigm and its degree of maturity.” This is further defined by the technological and scientific capabilities, and “the advances made by suppliers and customers.” (p. 1137) We documented that we have three processes that deal with these variables under management in the Research & Capabilities module.

Recently we learned of the difficulty for a firm to copy another firm's ideas or capability provides little to no value. On the contrary the effort to copy the capabilities is as potentially difficult as building their own unique capabilities. We now learn that innovation is dependent on the technology that supports the firm. That is the technology both enables and / or constrains the capabilities of the producer.

Professor Dosi notes “New technology paradigms reshape the patterns of opportunities of technical progress in terms of both the scope of potential innovations and ease with which they are achieved.” p. 1138. The technology that a producer has includes the ERP systems used within the organization.  When the business is a science, as it is in oil and gas, it would be in the producers interest to remain open and flexible in both its scientific and business approach. This is the strategic position that a producer would be capable of maintaining with People, Ideas & Objects software applications, based on the Preliminary Specification.

I now want to highlight the speed at which a producer firm is able to implement innovations. From the point in time of the research and discovery, to the actual implementation of the innovation there is little in terms of time or bureaucracy standing in the way of the proven innovation being implemented on a global scale across the firm. When the time comes for people to use the latest and greatest in terms of what innovation they should use, there is also no ambiguity as to what is authorized in terms of the most recent approved capabilities to use.

To review the process; we have the firm conducting a variety of studies or research through Work Orders and AFE’s to enhance their capabilities. The day to day of these studies and research are monitored in the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” which also has a page that monitors the scientific communities research. When these studies and research are concluded and capabilities are enhanced they are added to the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module where they are populated with all of the information necessary to document and implement the capability. We have drawn a football analogy here to the playbook of a football team. A team member only needs to look at the playbook to determine what their role is during any play. The “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is sorted through a variety of different keys with geological formation being one of them. In the Knowledge & Learning module any Joint Operating Committee that produces from xyz formation will therefore have access to xyz capabilities in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.”

The key limiting determinant in terms of time is the amount of effort necessary to take the research or study from its raw form and turn it into a usable capability. The people within the Joint Operating Committee are doing two things. Making operational decisions and executing the operations. They are not field testing experiments as lab rats. It's important that this distinction be made and the proper documentation be handed off from the research and study to those that will execute it. As once it is documented, you can see that it will be immediately available to be executed the next time that the operation is conducted anywhere within the producer firm. We will also have more to discuss on this point in the Knowledge & Learning module.

With this process in mind, we note that Professor Giovanni Dosi suggests two separate phenomenon are observed:

• First, new technological paradigms have continuously brought forward new opportunities for product development and productivity increases. p. 1138
• Secondly “A rather uniform, characteristic of the observed technological trajectories is their wide scope for mechanization, specialization and division of labor within and among plants and industries.” p. 1138

This brings to mind that the Research & Capabilities module, with the complexity of processes as we detailed in the last few days. Would be deficient from the point of view of having any feedback from the Joint Operating Committees. Particularly from the first phenomenon noted above. Therefore we need to open a third “page” in the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” that is a window on the “Lessons Learned” from the Knowledge & Learning module. That way what is being learned on a day to day basis can “bring forward new opportunities for product development and productivity increases.” I might be mistaken but I don’t think that a lot can be done from the Research & Capabilities module perspective in terms of the “mechanization, specialization and division of labor within and among plants and industries.” The user community may have a different point of view and see things differently which is the purpose of these user based developments. Therefore we’ll leave this point open to further debate, as all the other areas are.

The individual user(s) of the Research Budget Allocation Interface of the Research & Capabilities module will be at the forefront of the innovation that occurs within the producer firm. Having windows on the research that is developing within the firm, within the scientific community, the lessons learned in the Joint Operating Committees, and lets not forget the “Ideas Marketplace Blog” and “Supplier Collaborative Interface” are not far away either. Theirs will be a rich medium of information of what is happening in the innovative oil and gas industry. The concern that many will have is that this information is then codified into further capabilities which is subsequently published through to the various relevant Joint Operating Committees. There they will have these capabilities available to the members of the JOC’s and able to see and use the capabilities, which will include participants of other producer firms.

Professor Dosi (1988) notes a study conducted by Richard Levin et al 1984, in which they studied “the varying empirical significance of appropriability devices of (a) patents, (b) secrecy, (c) lead times, (d) costs and time required for duplication, (e) learning curve effects, (f) superior sales and service efforts.” Professor Dosi (1988) observed, “that lead times and learning curves are relatively more effective ways of protecting process innovations, and patents a more effective way to protect product innovations.” Dosi concludes. “Finally, there appears to be quite significant inter-industrial variance in the importance of the various ways of protecting innovations and in the overall degrees of appropriability.” (p. 1139)

Oil and gas producers are focused on process innovations which Dosi observed “that lead times and learning curves are relatively more effective ways of protecting them.” Which brings up a very valid point. Assume that one of the capabilities that was published through the Knowledge & Learning module was the capability to fracture shale. Just because it is published doesn't mean that it can be copied. The “team” has practiced and built the capability from previous experience and “learning curves” and that is how the capability exists. Just because a football team sees the design of another teams play does not mean that they will be able to implement the same play. They will have to work at building the right talent and practice to implement the capabilities necessary to execute the capability before they can successfully complete it. The same would be the situation for anyone observing another producers capabilities in a Joint Operating Committee.

Professor Dosi notes that Levin states that the control of complementary technologies becomes a “rent-earning firm-specific asset.” Dosi states “in general, it must be noticed that the partly tacit nature of innovative knowledge and its characteristics of partial private appropriability makes imitation a creative process, which involves search, which is not wholly distinct from the search for new development, and which is economically expensive - sometimes even more expensive than the original innovation, and applies to both patented and non-patented innovations.” (p. 1140)

With the fast changing science and technological paradigms and steep trajectories of the industry, the need to have the capability to innovate will be needed for each producer to develop on their own. If the costs of duplication are as steep as the costs of developing the internal capabilities, the producers should then rely on their process innovations to carry their firm. What are the alternatives? Sitting on your advanced innovations and not using them, for fear that someone will use them, in order to protect them?

However, this giving freely of one's capabilities to the joint account also imputes that a greater level of co-dependency exists. Partners in the Joint Operating Committee will have resources available to commit to the projects, and suppliers will have contributions as well. As the Preliminary Specification seeks to eliminate the redundant and mutually exclusive capabilities being built within each siloed corporation. The proposed alternative in the Preliminary Specification is to rely on the advanced contributions of the partnerships to bring about the most innovative solutions to the Joint Operating Committee.

When we are discussing the Research Budget Allocation Interface of the Research & Capabilities module it feels that we are at the heart of the innovative oil and gas producer. Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” has clearly identified the key factors that make a firm innovative. By instilling his work within the modules of the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification, the innovative oil and gas producer is able to have the quantifiable and replicable process of innovation within their domain. Something that I think is necessary for the difficult energy era that we find ourselves in today.

The vision that has been laid out so far in the Preliminary Specification provides a coherent way in which the producer would operate in this difficult energy era. These processes are all to support the innovative oil and gas producer and are based on the research that has been conducted here at People, Ideas & Objects. What is also clear in the research is that the lack of the processes that identify and support the innovation will lead to no innovation at all. A producer that was originally constructed in the easy energy era. An era that was focused on cost control can not function in the innovative and difficult energy era that is here, or just around the corner. The difficulty in managing these oil and gas concerns, with conflicting constructs and demands will only intensify.

Recently I stated that the people who are operating in the Joint Operating Committee are not experimental lab rats. That to leave a capability that was untested and untried for them to sort out was counter to the purpose of the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface,” the Knowledge & Learning module and the Joint Operating Committee. They are there for execution and not for the purpose of developing concepts or experimenting. To use the football analogy the Joint Operating Committee is game day, and what the research and study area needs is a metaphorical practice field. One in which the opportunity to explore failure is welcome and where a producer can attain a learning experience to the ultimate solution or capability.

With that it sounds like it's time for another interface. And we’ll call this the “Experiments Interface” which will list the number of experiments and document the type and expected results of any and all experiments being conducted by the firm. This will be a comprehensive interface, much like the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” in that it will also have many similarities to a project management interface. This will provide the users with the ability to manage the project from start to finish in a manner that the capabilities are able to be developed as expected by the firm. These two interfaces will enable the users to control and manage the firm's development at the speed of the market and the science.

I am not asserting that efforts in the past were not innovative or moved the science substantially. The issue People, Ideas & Objects is raising is that the pace and speed of the science’s development in the near to mid-term, and particularly the long term, will accelerate based on the fact that, globally, reserve replacement continues to be progressively more challenging, and the prices realized for the commodities have begun to reflect these challenges. Professor Dosi concludes with.

Finally, the evolution of the economic environment in the longer term, is instrumental in the selection of new technological paradigms, and, thus in the long term selection of the fundamental directions and procedures of innovative search. p. 1142

Therefore being in tune with the market and the science is the only safe place for the innovative oil and gas producer to be.

Who Does the Innovation

When we consider what a producers capabilities, those that are listed in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification, would look like. Much would depend on the type of the producer that is represented there. As one could imagine a large firm such as Exxon would have a vast library of capabilities, and a small start up would be limited to a page or two in terms of what they were able to achieve. And there would be other criteria that would reflect the focus and innovativeness of the firm in terms of where their energies were best deployed.

Some might assume that the majority of the innovation in the oil and gas industry is developed within the large producers. However, I think that is generally considered to be untrue. The small and start up oil and gas firms along with the intermediate producers are probably responsible for the majority of the innovations in the last 20 - 30 years. Professor Giovanni Dosi’s reference to the Schumpeterian hypothesis, “that bigness is relatively more conducive to innovation, that concentration and market power affect the propensity to innovate” and his rejection of that premise is evident in this paper’s following three points.

• First, although “there appears to be roughly a log linear relation within industries between firm size and R & D expenditures,” upon closer investigation, “estimates show roughly non-decreasing return of innovative process to firm size.” This is probably attributable to the fact that very large and very small firms conduct most R & D. p. 1151
• Second, although the expenditures in R & D incurred by large firms are impressive from a total expenditure perspective, the aggregate expenditures of small firms on a global basis becomes far greater in aggregate than the large business. p. 1151
• Third, money is not necessarily a good indicator of innovativeness. Large variances within industries can clearly be identified irrespective of firm size. p. 1152

Therefore “bigness” is not necessarily an element that enhances innovation. This might be intuitively understood by the small oil and gas producers ability to punch above their weight. In the software development business, SAP may do significant generic research in the software development arena. However, they do very little in terms of specific oil and gas research. On the other end of the scale People, Ideas & Objects have completed substantial oil and gas specific research and have commenced the development of oil and gas specific software with the publication of the Preliminary Specification. And I can assure you that at this time we are a very small firm, proving Professor Dosi’s first point.

If we look at Professor Dosi’s second and third point together. It is clear that money is not necessarily a determining factor in innovation. Although large firms spend impressively on R&D, that does not produce a number of usable innovations. And it may be the lack of financial resources that motivate the smaller firms to innovative problem solving on the other end.

Professor Dosi (1988) provides three caveats to the three differences noted.

• Statistical proxies cannot capture aspects of technical change based on informal learning. p. 1152
• Secondly, “differences in businesses and business lines (and business or product life cycles) may provide discrepancies in comparison of “like” firms. p. 1152
• Thirdly, many firms are expending significant research dollars in keeping up with other firms innovations.  p. 1152

Or in summary, proof that money is not necessarily a determinant of innovative success and that all producers need to be represented in an innovative oil and gas industry.

One element that we have not discussed in our review of the Research & Capabilities module is the factor of revenue per employee. We are using the factor in many of the interfaces, and I am only highlighting it here to show how the Research & Capabilities module influences the elements that make up the calculation of revenue per employee. Recall in the other modules that there are large variances in the factor between producers. These variances show that there is a large asymmetry between the innovativeness of the producers. It is this asymmetry that is the topic of our discussion.

It was through the review of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” that we learned of the asymmetry effect. That each successful innovation creates an asymmetry effect, or an overall increase in competitive position of the entire industry. However, that does not necessarily increase the competitiveness of all the participants of the industry. The ability of laggard companies to improve their competitive position helps to form new positions within their industries. These laggard companies are generally able to move further and quicker through their imitation of leading companies. However, the primary differentiating component of competition based on innovation is attributable to the innovative capability of the firm.  ie. a laggard will remain a laggard without the direct and active development of innovative appropriability conditions.

Professor Dosi finds these points difficult to quantify and prove, but states these may be tacitly understood. People, Ideas & Objects asserts that that was the case in 1988 at the time this paper was written, however, the laggards ability to “keep up” or even “catch up” may have progressively diminished through the application of Information Technology during the 2000’s.

There is a determining paradox for the ability to innovate based on imitation or on the basis of strict Research and Development. Companies can copy others innovations in industries with minimal asymmetry, (where competitors are all the same). Whereas industries that are asymmetric (like oil and gas) or have large variances in their capabilities are best served by differentiating themselves by pursuit of Research and Development.

This is why the focus on the capabilities is critical to the success of the oil and gas concern. They are able to differentiate themselves by research and development and the focusing on capabilities. Passing these capabilities on to the Joint Operating Committee through the Knowledge & Learning module allows the producer to initiate these capabilities “just in time” and where they are needed. This can be done without the concern that they are exposed or risked to potential competitors through the Joint Operating Committee. It should be clear through this analysis that those that would attempt to copy others capabilities will be expending extensive resources to do so, as much or even more then it would cost to develop the capabilities on their own, however, those that chose to copy will remain static within their competitive position within the industry. Its just not that easy to copy someone else, and it's not that valuable to their firm. When markets such as oil and gas are asymmetric, Research & Development are the ways in which to differentiate capabilities and build an innovative oil and gas producer.

The Outlook for Innovation

We now get to soar with the eagles as we apply the overarching scope of the application of innovation to the oil and gas producer. Our discussion takes the summary of Professor Giovanni Dosi’s research and applies it to the oil and gas industry. To show the potential of what would be the effect of developing the People, Ideas & Objects ERP software.

Professor Giovanni Dosi asserts that the makeup of industries and companies is attributable not only to the endogenous force of competition. Innovation and imitation also make up the fundamental structure of an industry. “Market structure and technological performance are endogenously generated by three underlying sets of determinants.”

Each of the following three components is evident in the marketplace of an oil and gas producer today, as reflected in:

• The structure of demand.

Satisfying the insatiable demand of the global energy marketplace is critical to the advancement of all societies. American and western as well as Chinese and developing societies face real challenges in sourcing adequate long term sources of energy. The long term demands on the energy producer have never been so great.

• The nature and strength of opportunities for technological advancement.

The nature and opportunities for technological advancement lead one to believe mankind has never faced the level of opportunity and acceleration that is possible today. The industrial mechanization of the past 100 years combined with the prospective mechanization of intellectual pursuits combine to markedly appreciate the value of human life. The availability of energy will be a critical element of this advancement.

• The ability of firms to appropriate the returns from private investment in research and development.

The oil and gas industry is moving closer to its earth science and engineering principles. Innovation, research and development in both the producer firm and the market are and will become more commercial in nature. It is on the basis of success or failure of these factors that will determine the success or failure of the firm within the industry.

By codifying the earth science and engineering capabilities within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” the producer begins the process of documenting what it is capable of achieving. By using the “Planning & Deployment Interface” either through the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning module, the producer will be able to deploy those capabilities with the resources they have developed. We have drawn the analogy of a football team and how they design and communicate plays as to how these modules will work in the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. But at the same time the overall process of innovation is working within the background. The research and development is being conducted and the innovation is being deployed.

Professor Richard Langlois on Capabilities

There are a couple of “big” things that the Research & Capabilities module does. The first is to divide the labor between the research and development processes and the execution of those processes. These are separated in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. The other “big” thing that is done is to move the knowledge to the area where the decision rights are held, the Joint Operating Committee. Professor Richard Langlois notes in the following.

The question then becomes: why are capabilities sometimes organized within firms, sometimes decentralized in markets, and sometimes coordinated by a myriad contractual and ownership arrangements like joint ventures, franchisees, and networks? Explicitly echoing Hayek, Jensen and Meckling (1992, p.251) who point out that economic organization must solve two different kinds of problems: "the rights assignment problem (determining who should exercise a decision right) and the control or agency problem (how to ensure that self-interested decision agents exercise their rights in a way that contributes to the organizational objective)." There are basically two ways to ensure such a "collocation" of knowledge and decision making: "One is by moving the knowledge to those with the decision rights; the other is by moving the decision rights to those with the knowledge." (Jensen and Meckling 1992 p. 253). p. 9

Another point that jumped out at me was the quote from Professor Carliss Baldwin of Harvard University. That “knowledge begets capability and capability begets action” seems to capture the objective of what it is we are after in the module. We need to remember to keep this focus in mind when we are working in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” That the data elements that we bring in to the interface are designed to initiate action.

During our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi we learned of technical trade-offs. And how these trade-offs facilitate the ability for industries to innovate on the changing technical and scientific paradigms. Crucial to the facilitation of these trade-offs is a fundamental component that spurs the change and is usually abundant and available at low costs. For innovation to occur in oil and gas, People, Ideas & Objects asserts that the ability to seek and find knowledge, and to collaborate are two “commodities” that are abundant today. With their inherent low direct costs, knowledge and collaboration are the triggers for a number of technical paradigms which will provide companies with fundamental innovations. There are many knowledge and collaborative interfaces in the Preliminary Specification, making the People, Ideas & Objects ERP system the ideal candidate for the innovative oil and gas producer.

Lastly we should note that when markets such as oil and gas are asymmetric, research & development are the ways in which to differentiate capabilities and build an innovative oil and gas producer.

It was during the Preliminary Research Report that we determined two important elements that we should point out here in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. The first was the oil and gas industry was moving away from an “easy” energy era where producers were able to provide for bankable returns on investments. And moving to a much more difficult scientific basis of the business based on the earth science and engineering capabilities as the key determining competitive advantages. The other element that was determined in the Preliminary Research Report was that organizations are defined and supported by the software that they used. And we coined the phrase that SAP is the bureaucracy to reflect this fact. Therefore in order to change the organization it is necessary to first change the software that defines the organization.

It is in the Research & Capabilities module that we are defining and supporting the science basis of the oil and gas business. How the earth science and engineering capabilities of the firm are acquired and deployed are the roles of this and the Knowledge & Learning modules. It is with that in mind that we begin our review of Professor Richard Langlois 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

It is by way of a scenario that a producer was able to document the internal and external components of the capabilities needed to conduct multi-lateral and multi-frac shale gas operations. Through a series of tests and trials they have been able to secure these processes to the point where the capabilities are deployed successfully with minimal interruption. These processes documentation in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is subsequently populated to all of the shale gas zones of all the Joint Operating Committees they participate in and are available to be deployed at any time. The Joint Operating Committees know they can rely on a fully tested process based on their publication in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” By selecting the code in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” everyone from the engineers and geologists from the Joint Operating Committee participants to the lease hands on the drilling rig can see their role and responsibilities in making the operation a success. It is through the Knowledge & Learning “Planning & Deployment Interface” that the individual codes of each of the capabilities are accumulated and the program is designed to be executed.

One of our important goals here is to bring the capabilities view more centrally in the ken of economics. We offer it not as a finely honed theory but as a developing area of research whose potential remains relatively untapped. Moreover, we present the capabilities view not as an alternative to the transaction-cost approach but as complementary area of research p. 7.

What we had not discussed, until now, in the previous entries of the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning module is an important element of the “Planning & Deployment Interface,” the AFE. It will naturally be the AFE that is a large part of how the business and operational end of the deployment is initiated. Therefore the AFE template is a simple part of the “Planning & Deployment Interface.”

In sum, whether we see it from the perspective of the capabilities perspective or from the perspective of the modern economics of organization, there is an exciting theoretical frontier ahead. p. 31

The obvious comment that I want to make at this point is for clarity. And that is that the marketplace is the source of the capabilities, with operational coordination coming from the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee. If the business is a science, having everyone read from the same, unique in each instance, hymn book will not only be necessary, but will be the only way in which to be successful.

Seldom if ever have economists of organization considered that knowledge may be imperfect in the realm of production, and that institutional forms may play the role not (only) of constraining unproductive rent seeking behaviour but (also) of creating the possibilities for productive rent-seeking behaviour in the first place. To put it another way, economists have neglected the benefit side of alternative organizational structures; for reason of history and technique, they have allocated most of their resources to the cost side. p. 6

You have a unique, one time, temporary organization which is derivative of the Joint Operating Committee. Isn’t it worthwhile to make sure that that organization is able to understand everything that it is working to accomplish.

We recently noted how the information detailed in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module would provide the “knowledge, experience, and skills” of the operation. That these details were provided to all of the members of the temporary organization that was put together for the purpose of that specific operation. From the lease hands on the drilling rig to the engineers and geologists of the participating producers of the Joint Operating Committee. Everyone would be on the same page in terms of what and how the capabilities of the firms and market were being deployed. We now want to discuss these points further and relate how the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification enables the innovative producer to successfully complete these field operations.

[I]t seems to me that we cannot hope to construct an adequate theory of industrial organization and in particular to answer our question about the division of labour between firm and market, unless the elements of organization, knowledge, experience and skills are brought back to the foreground of our vision (Richardson 1972, p. 888).

Before we get too much further into this discussion let us also bring in the Military Command & Control Metaphor that was developed by People, Ideas & Objects. The MCCM provides a means for the “pooled” technical resources within a Joint Operating Committee to immediately adopt a command and control structure that is recognizable. It is expected that this command and control structure would also extend over the field personnel from the field contractors that were hired for the operation being conducted. This would therefore provide a level of control to the engineers and geologists that would attain the precision necessary. Such that once the engineer gave the order to drill to a TD of a certain depth, then that would be achieved at exactly the point where the engineer expected it.

Here in the next quotation Professor Langlois raises an interesting point about “incentive alignment.” But in essence he is saying that at a certain point its not about a matter of incentives that motivates a team to succeed.

As we will argue in more detail below, there are in fact two principal theoretical avenues closed off by a conception of organization as the solution to a problem of incentive alignment. And both have to do with the question of production knowledge. One is the possibility that knowledge about how to produce is imperfect - or, as we would prefer to say, dispersed, bounded, sticky and idiosyncratic. The second is the possibility that knowledge about how to link together one person's (or organization's) productive knowledge with that of another is also imperfect. The first possibility leads us to the issue of capabilities or competencies; the second leads to the issue of qualitative coordination. p. 11

Reading of this next quotation shows that we have a job to do here in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module. That is we need to replace this critical function that was done by the “firm” in the previous organization. As much as I want to criticize the current management they are doing the job to a certain level. And to not respect that level would be a failure on our part. What we need to do is to capture what the firm does now by “lowering the costs of qualitative coordination in a world of uncertainty.”

A close reading of this passage suggests that Coase's explanation for the emergence of the firm is ultimately a coordination one: the firm is an institution that lowers the costs of qualitative coordination in a world of uncertainty. p. 11

Going back to the incentives issue for a moment. Lets put in context the conflict between the service industry and the oil and gas producers. They have been in disagreement for a number of years as to the pricing of the services for field operations. Read this next quotation with this in mind.

All recognize that knowledge is imperfect and that most economically interesting contracts are, as a consequence, incomplete. But most of the literature considers seriously as coordinating devices only contracts and the incentives they embody. It thus neglects the role- the potentially far more important role - of routines and capabilities as coordinating devices. Moreover, the assumption that production costs are distinct from transaction costs and that production costs can and should always be held constant obscures the way productive knowledge is generated and transmitted in the economy. p. 14

Professor Langlois is 100% correct. The producers are relying on contracts to incentivize the contractors and its not working. What is required is better coordination. And that begins with systems like the People, Ideas & Objects Research & Capabilities module that details the capabilities of the producers and field staff in a manner that constructively deals with the problems of a scientific based business.

What could only be described as a breakthrough, how we documented the Preliminary Specifications coordination of capabilities through the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module. This relieving the incentives problem that contracting of the service industry is presenting to the oil and gas industry. As we learned, coordination will provide oil and gas producers with the control over field operations. Coordination through the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” provides the alternative means in which to ensure the science of the oil and gas business is effectively controlled as opposed to motivating the service industry through incentive clauses in the contracts. We will continue with this concept of the “incentive problem” and test it further with Professor Richard Langlois paper “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization.”

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.

It is through the producers documentation of the capabilities in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module that the “knowledge, experience and skills” are captured. From the engineers and geologists that are part of the Joint Operating Committee to those that are in the field, each should have an understanding of what is required of them from the capability that is listed in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” Recall that in the Knowledge & Learning module these capabilities are called like plays in the football analogy. Everyone on the team knowing what is happening and what their role and task is. That is what needs to be documented in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” for each of these roles, for each of the capabilities that are captured there.

In a world of tacit and distributed knowledge - that is, of differential capabilities - having the same blueprints [or software] as one's competitors is unlikely to translate into having the same costs of production. Generally, in such a world, firms will not confront the same production costs for the same type of productive activity. p. 18

And that becomes obvious when we consider that the capabilities that are available to each Joint Operating Committee, and the Military Command & Control Metaphor that is used, is going to be unique to each situation it is applied to. Using the same team to apply the same capability over and over again however should yield the same results. Therefore, if you were running a ten well drilling program then the consistency of the capabilities and the MCCM would provide the same precision and the same results.

This in turn, implies that the capabilities may be interpreted as a distinct theory of economic organization. p. 18

and

... while transaction cost consideration undoubtedly explain why firms come into existence, once most production is carried out within firms and most transactions are firm-firm transactions and not factor-factor transactions, the level of transaction costs will be greatly reduced and the dominant factor determining the institutional structure of production will in general no longer be transaction costs but the relative costs of different firms in organizing particular activities. p 19

This is inherently and simply true. The key to the successful implementation of any program is the level of documentation of the capability and the level of control during the operation. The “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” combined with the Military Command & Control Metaphor provide the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee with the means for successful operations. Remember that “knowledge begets capability and capability begets action.” And contrast this to the current situation where the producers throw more money at the service industry to incentivize them to succeed.

I have a few more comments to make on the coordination of the markets through the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module. It might seem that we are contradicting ourselves when we criticize the bureaucracy yet put in place such extensive coordinating mechanisms to control the oil and gas operation. This discussion will show the differences between the bureaucracy and operational control is a matter of decision rights and authority. One of which, the bureaucracy, is redundant. I will also show the level of control that is implemented in the People, Ideas & Objects system is through the Job Order system.

Multi-lateral and Multi-frac wells are rather large and expensive operations. For that matter drilling a conventional well is a large risk for most producers. The need for operational control is not a nice to have but a necessity. The need to have the integration of the oil and gas and service industries to the level discussed here in the Preliminary Specification is a large and expensive undertaking. One that fits within the scope of the Preliminary Specifications budget to determine the overall needs of the system. And also within the scope of the People, Ideas & Objects eleven module application in its initial commercial release. Lets not fool ourselves, the scope of change that we are creating here is dramatic. To achieve the integration between these two industries needs to have this type of approach to make it successful.

It is in Professor Langlois paper “Industrial Dynamics, Innovation and Development” that he strikes the right approach in terms of the issue of the Preliminary Specification and these software developments.

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

In terms of operational control the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” provides a means to have everyone on the team operating from the same hymn sheet. Everyone knows what the plan is and everyone knows what everyone else is doing. Now we need a means in which to execute the plan. In the “Planning & Deployment Interface” as well as in some other interfaces users will have access to the “Job Order System” of the People, Ideas & Objects application. This will provide the ability for a member of the operational team, with the operational authority as designated in the Military Command & Control Metaphor, to issue a Job Order to execute a certain operation. Simply nothing is done during the field operation without the Job Order being issued.

This next quote might be confusing without some discussion. It is from a Berkeley study and is dated in 1989, a time when the Japanese and the Americans were fighting over dominance in the microchip manufacturing industries. Apparently the two industries were configured quite differently, as Berkeley notes below. And it is the Americans that grew to dominate the industry at the Japanese almost total capitulation. The organizational structure of these industries is interesting to see some twenty three years later.

In one of the few contemporary academic examinations of this industry, a study by the Berkeley Roundtable on the International Economy concluded that; ... with regard to both the generation of learning in production and the appropriation of economic returns from such learning, the U.S. semiconductor equipment and device industries are structurally disadvantaged relative to the Japanese. The Japanese have evolved an industrial model that combines higher levels of concentration of both chip and equipment suppliers with quasi-integration between them. whereas the American industry is characterized by levels of concentration that, by comparison, are too low and [by] excessive vertical disintegration (that is, an absence of mechanisms to coordinate their learning and investment processes) (Stowsky, 1989) p. 3

My point in highlighting this is that we are relying heavily on the decentralized marketplace in the service industry to provide the oil and gas industry with the products and services it needs. We are however, also providing the Joint Operating Committee with high levels of coordination of the operation during the times it is employing the service industry. This is not a contradiction, one is a market, the other is an operation. The oil and gas industry depends on a highly innovative service industry and this will be expected from the marketplace. It also demands precision from the field operations that it conducts. Innovation will arise from both.

Thus in radio it was not the case that an integrated path of learning within a large firm gave rise to innovation; it was rather that innovation, channeled within a particular structure of property rights, contained the path of learning within a single large firm. p. 16

We have discussed modularity many times with respect to the Preliminary Specification. With eleven modules in the specification we have relied heavily on the principles of modularity to ensure that the user is provided with usable systems. We are now going to take modularity to a deeper level. In the past few days we have been discussing the unique organization that is created to complete a field operation. These organizations are derivative of the Joint Operating Committee and include members of the service industry. They are authorized, controlled and operated in the People, Ideas & Objects system through the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface,” “Planning & Deployment Interface,” “Military Command & Control Metaphor,” “AFE,” and “Job Order” systems to name a few. These make up a modular system that are part of the “modularity” benefits that we are seeking to achieve in this temporary organization and the Preliminary Specification.

Looking at the operation in the field through the lens of modularity can help us to deal with complexity and to simplify the interactions between the different situations and people. From Professor Richard Langlois paper “Modularity in Technology and Organization.”

Modularity is a very general set of principles for managing complexity. By breaking up a complex system into discrete pieces - which can then communicate with one another only through standardized interfaces within a standardized architecture - one can eliminate what would otherwise be an unmanageable spaghetti tangle of systemic interconnections. p. 1

Having difficult systems interconnections is a minor issue when compared to the real problems that people will have with systems that are too complex and too “different” each time they go to use them. As Professor Sydney Winter of the Wharton School of Business in his paper “Towards a Neo-Shumpterian Theory of the Firm” notes.

Carrying out a new plan and acting according to a customary one are things as different as making a road and walking along it. (p.85) p. 9

It is therefore imperative that we apply modularity theory to the design of the temporary organization that makes up these derivative organizations.

What is new is the application of the idea of modularity not only to technological design but also to organizational design. Sanchez and Mahoney (1996) go so far as to assert that modularity in the design of products leads to - or at least ought to lead to modularity in the design of the organizations that produce such products. p. 1

Remember we are spanning the oil and gas industry and the service industry. The marketplace and the firm. And suddenly the scope and budget of the Preliminary Specification doesn’t seem large enough. To achieve the efficiency and effectiveness of the interactions between the two industries will require this approach. Can it be done in an ad-hoc or other fashion? Are we dealing with Information Technologies that are in their infancy? Or are we dealing with the limited and self interested minds of the bureaucracy?

To incorporate elements of modularity into the systems that we build we have certain design considerations to include. In terms of the temporary organizations that we are creating here for these operations, I think the key focus will have to be on standards.

Recently, Baldwin and Clark (1997, p. 86) have drawn on similar ideas from computer science to formulate some general principles of modular systems design. The decomposition of a system into modules, they argue, should involve the partitioning of information into visible design rules and hidden design parameters. The visible design rules (or visible information consists of three parts.

• An architecture specifies what modules will be part of the system and what their function will be.
• Interfaces describe in detail how the modules will interact, including how they fit together and communicate.
• And standards test a modules conformity to design rules and measure the modules performance relative to other modules.

These visible pieces of information need to be widely shared and communicated. But contrast, the hidden design parameters are encapsulated within the modules, and they need not (indeed, should not) be communicated beyond the boundaries of the module. p. 7

We move on from modularity to discuss “Dynamic Transaction Costs” in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. We have discussed these costs in other modules and have dealt with them by establishing an account in the chart of accounts to specify these costs when they are incurred, where ever they are incurred. They are particularly relevant to the discussion in the Research & Capabilities module as Professor Langlois describes them as;

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

Constructing a temporary operational organization that is derivative of the Joint Operating Committee and populated with the service industry representatives based on the capabilities established in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities module. May incur “Dynamic Transaction Costs.” We are looking for an increase in economic performance from the oil and gas industry. In order to achieve that higher level of performance we expect the division of labor and specialization to be strong elements of how that increased performance is achieved. Having the coordination and organization constructed in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is how the oil and gas producer will achieve these higher levels of performance.

It is, Marshall says, a general rule, to which there are not very many exceptions, that the development of the organism, whether social or physical, involves an increasing subdivision of function between its separate parts on the one hand, and on the other, a more intimate connection between them. Each part gets to be less and less self sufficient, to depend for its well being more and more on other parts... This increased subdivision of functions, or "differentiation," as it is called, manifests itself with regard to industry in such forms as the division of labour, and the development of specialized skill, knowledge and machinery: while "integration," that is, a growing intimacy and firmness of the connections between the separate parts of the industrial organism, shows itself in such forms as the increase of security of commercial credit, and of the means and habits of communication by sea and road, by railway and telegraph, by post and printing press. (Marshall, 1961, IV.viii.1 p.241).

So in essence we have two major processes that will incur dynamic transaction costs. One is the move from the firm to the Joint Operating Committee as the coordinator of the operations. And secondly, the enhanced division of labor and specialization bringing a further “subdivision of function between its separate parts.” Therefore it is necessary to capture the role and responsibilities of everyone involved in the operation to ensure that the tasks are completed with the objective in mind. And that includes the lease hands on the drilling rig and the water hauling driver. It will be this level of operational control that provides the Joint Operating Committee with the successful operations they seek.

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

It might be argued that the lack of operational organization that is exercised by the oil and gas company in today’s marketplace is resulting in the conflict between the oil and gas companies and the service industry. Leading to the cost overruns. And if Marshall is correct, of which he has over a century of proof, then the solution will require an advanced organizational construct. And in oil and gas that must involve the Joint Operating Committee the legal, financial, operational decision making, communication, cultural, innovation and strategic framework of the industry.

We continue on with our review of Professor Richard Langlois’ research through the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. The discussion may have been a little confusing in that the focus might have appeared to be on the Knowledge & Learning module with the strong Joint Operating Committee focus. That is one of the possibilities with these specifications being so close in terms of their functionality. Recall too that the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” which is detailed in the Research & Capabilities module is populated into the Knowledge & Learning module for deployment purposes. This confusion between the modules will appear from time to time and is otherwise unavoidable and immaterial.

It is in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” that we are seeking to document the “what” and “how” of the operation the Joint Operating Committee will undertake. It is very important to note at this point that the tacit knowledge that makes up that operation can not be documented. It will however be invoked through the orders in the Job Order system. The depth of “knowledge, skills and experience” that is documented in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” includes the members of the Joint Operating Committee, their roles and responsibilities, and the field operations personnel. Detailing what and how they need to do their jobs in order to attain the objective of the operation. In a paper entitled “Transaction Costs in Real Time” Professor Langlois notes:

Although one can find versions of the idea in Smith, Marshall, and elsewhere, the modern discussion of the capabilities of organization probably begins with Edith Penrose (1959), who suggested viewing the firm as a 'pool of resources'. Among the writers who have used and developed this idea are G.B. Richardson (1972), Richard Nelson and Sidney Winter (1982), and David Teece (1980, 1982). To all these authors, the firm is a pool not of tangible but of intangible resources. Capabilities, in the end, are a matter of knowledge. Because of the nature of specialization and the limits to cognition, organizations as well as individuals are limited in what they know how to do effectively. Put the other way, organizations possess a pool of more-or-less embodied 'how to' knowledge useful for particular classes of activities. pp. 105 - 106.

That’s an effective way to state what it is that we are trying to achieve here. The “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” is a how-to database of capabilities the firm has for getting things done. Or;

'Routines,' write Nelson and Winter (1982, p. 124), 'are the skills of an organization.' p. 106

Now here is the point where we need to pay attention. Both figuratively and literally. In this discussion as well as in any and all oil and gas field operations. The ability to do any of these tasks on autopilot doesn’t exist. And the implications of the next quotation is far reaching.

Such tacit knowledge is fundamentally empirical: it is gained through imitation and repetition not through conscious analysis or explicit instruction. This certainly does not mean that humans are incapable of innovation; but it does mean that there are limits to what conscious attention can accomplish. It is only because much of life is a matter of tacit knowledge and unconscious rules that conscious attention can produce as much as it does. p. 106

It will need to be the explicit instruction contained within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” that guides the field operation. The conscious attention necessary to follow the program is a necessity. However, this is also about innovation. If there is an opportunity for further innovation there is the Job Order system in which to invoke the request for a change in orders.

In a metaphoric sense, at least, the capabilities or the organization are more than the sum (whatever that means) of the 'skill' of the firm's physical capital, there is also the matter of organization. How the firm is organized - how the routines of the humans and machines are linked together - is also part of a firm's capabilities. Indeed, 'skills, organization, and technology are intimately intertwined in a functioning routine, and it is difficult to say exactly where one aspect ends and another begins' (Nelson and Winter, 1982, p. 104). p. 106

One thing I can say for certainty is that the technology begins with People, Ideas & Objects. By developing the Preliminary Specification the producers will be able to attain the level of innovativeness and operational control that is described here.

It has been a long and difficult process to detail what it is exactly that we are capturing in this interface. Capabilities are a difficult concept to quantify and qualify. Add to that difficulty is the need to keep innovation at the forefront of the producers and Joint Operating Committees capability, and the challenge ahead is well defined. We are continuing on with our review of Professor Richard Langlois’ paper “Transaction Cost Economics in Real Time” with our focus on obtaining the capabilities from the marketplace derived of the service industry offerings.

One thing that can be stated that is for certain is that the Preliminary Specification is consistent with the culture of the industry. No producer firm seeks to internalize the capabilities that are available in the free market. The capital nature of the equipment, the geographical range of operations and the skills of the people employed would require the producer to have such extensive operations that they would lose focus of the task at hand, finding and producing oil and gas reserves. Using the service industry as a market is the only choice and the manner in which People, Ideas & Objects is proposing in the Research & Capabilities module is to control the operation with what amounts to military precision.

But often - and especially when innovation is involved - the links among firms are of a more complex sort, involving everything from informal swaps of information (von Hippel, 1989) to joint ventures and other formal collaborative arrangements (Mowery, 1989). All firms must rely on the capabilities owned by others, especially to the extent those capabilities are dissimilar to those the firm possesses. p. 108

The “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” has never been conceived as a static repository of information. On the contrary it is a dynamic interface where the information is constantly being updated as a result of changes in the market, the producer firm or Joint Operating Committee. These dynamic changes are reflections of the actions taken by these participants and are populated through a variety of inputs.

A market form of organization is capable of learning and creating new capabilities, often in a self reinforcing and synergistic way. Marshall describes just such a system when he talks about the benefits of localized industry. The mysteries of the trade become no mysteries; but are as it were in the air and children learn many of them unconsciously. good work is rightly appreciated, inventions and improvement in machinery, in processes and the general organization of the business have their merits promptly discussed: if one man starts a new idea, it is taken up by others and combined with suggestions of their own; and thus it becomes the source of further new ideas. And presently subsidiary trades grow up in the neighbourhood, supplying it with implements and materials, organizing its traffic, and in many ways conducing to the economy of its materials. (Marshall, 2961, IV .x.3, p. 271) p. 120

It is the job of the producer firm in some instances and the Joint Operating Committee in most instances to effectively and efficiently coordinate and control the operation. The capabilities available from the marketplace must be the most up to date. In an Information Technology environment in which we find ourselves, that is not the issue. Having the people involved on the same page, understanding the proper command and control structure, the means to execute the operation and the appropriate objective is the issue. And that issue is handled in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules of the Preliminary Specification. Yet at the same time, because we are relying on the market, and are structured for innovation we can still rely on the benefits of both.

In this sense, the ability of a large organization to coordinate the implementation of an innovation, which is clearly an advantage in some situations, may be a disadvantage in other ways. Coordination means getting everyone on the same wavelength. But the variation that drives an evolutionary learning system depends on people being on different wavelengths - it depends, in effect, on out-breeding. This is something much more difficult to achieve in a large organization than in a disintegrated system. Indeed, as Cohen and Levinthal (1990a, p. 132) point out, an organization experiencing rapid change ought in effect to emulate a market in its ability to expose to the environment a broad range of knowledge gathering 'receptors'. p. 120

and

Vertical integration, I argued, might be most conducive to systemic, integrative innovation, especially those involving process improvements when demand is high and predictable. By contrast, vertical integration may be less desirable - and may be undesirable - in the case of differentiation or autonomous innovations. Such innovations require less coordination, and vertical integration in such cases may serve only to cut off alternative approaches. Moreover, disintegration might be most beneficial in situations of high uncertainty: situations in which the product is changing rapidly, the characteristics of demand are still unknown, and production is either unproblematical or production costs play a minor role in competition. In such cases the coordinating benefits of vertical integration are far outweighed by the evolutionary benefits of disintegration. pp. 120 - 121

If running a successful oil and gas company was easy everyone would be doing it. We certainly are moving into a challenging time for a challenging business. Those that want to step up are going to need to have the organization defined and supported by the software the firm and Joint Operating Committee uses. Software like People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification.

Lets go back a bit to look at the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” from a different perspective. One in which we are looking more high level at the attributes of what we are attempting to achieve. With this perspective it should be possible to see how the Preliminary Specification relies on the dynamic service industry marketplace, and defines and supports the framework to execute field operations with military precision. This seemingly inherent contradiction is anything but. The two are fundamentally different with the field operations being a temporary snapshot of the marketplace’s offerings. Once that operation is complete, that organization for the field operations and its capabilities will never exist again. That is not to suggest that the capabilities are deleted from the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface,” it's just that they do not exist in the organization that was used for that specific field operation.

We want to maintain all of the elements of a dynamic and innovative service industry. The Preliminary Specification has set out to provide for this by ensuring the service industry receives strong support from the oil and gas industry. This is also necessary for the energy industry to ensure that the demands of society, in terms of energy, are met. Once this financial marketplace recession is over the demand for energy will resume a steady pace. We have discussed Professors Anthony Giddens and Wanda Orlikowski theory of Structuration and model of Structuration. That people, society and organizations must move together or there will be failure. It should be asked if these societal demands for energy can be met by the current oil and gas organizations? Technology can have a role in this. From Professor Orlikowski’s paper.

Interaction with technology influences the institutional property of an organization, and this influence is more likely to be reinforcing rather than a transforming one. (p. 235 The Duality of Technology: Rethinking the Concept of Technology in Organization). 

In order to achieve the organizational performance necessary to meet society's demands, it will require the technologies to be put in place first. This was one of the key findings of the Preliminary Research Report. This same theme is picked up by Professor Richard Langlois in his paper “The Vanishing Hand: The Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism.”

The basic argument - the vanishing hand hypothesis - is as follows. Driven by increases in population and income and by the reduction of technological and legal barriers to trade, the Smithian process of the division of labor always tends to lead to finer specialization of function and increased coordination through markets, much as Allyn Young (1928) claimed long ago. But the components of that process - technology, organization, and institutions - change at different rates. p. 3

So where are we? The People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification is designed to support innovative and dynamic markets that will enable the oil and gas industry to meet the surging demand for energy. But neither the surging demand nor the software exists. 10 million cars were sold in China last year. Probably the same number will be sold this year. The point is that the markets for energy are developing and the demand will grow. The question will be who will be the first to volunteer to keep their economy stagnant due to a lack of energy? And just as the markets for energy develop the software too needs to be developed.

As in Chandler, secular changes in relative prices attendant on "globalization" (driven by technology or politics) affect economic organization not only directly but also, and perhaps more importantly, indirectly through changes in technology. Production costs matter as much as transaction costs (Langlois and Foss 1999). Moreover, the kind of transaction costs that matter in history are often not those of the Williamson kind but those I have labeled dynamic transaction costs (Langlois 1992b). Costs of coordinating through markets may be high simply because existing markets - or more correctly, existing market-supporting institutions - are inadequate to the needs of new technology and of new profit opportunities. But when markets are given time and a larger extent, they tend to "catch up," and it starts to pay to delegate more and more activities rather than to direct them administratively within a corporate structure. p. 5

There will be significant changes made to the markets during the times we are developing the People, Ideas & Objects software. Changes that will need to be captured in the software. There is never a best time in which to approach these changes, however, now might be a good time.

We are now going to reinforce the way in which the Research & Capabilities module captures the knowledge within the producer firm. In providing for the capture of this knowledge the Preliminary Specification is limited by the attributes of the different types of knowledge and the culture of the oil and gas industry. These two forces have formed the manner in which the Research & Capabilities module deals with the knowledge and its capture. It is in Professor Richard Langlois’ paper “Chandler in a Larger Frame: Markets, Transaction Costs, and Organizational Form in History” that he states the following.

Much knowledge - including, importantly, much knowledge about production - is tacit and can be acquired only through a time-consuming process of learning by doing. Moreover, knowledge about production is often essentially distributed knowledge: that is to say, knowledge that is only mobilized in the context of carrying out a multi-person productive task, that is not possessed by any single agent, and that normally requires some sort of qualitative coordination - for example, through direction and command - for its efficient use. p. 359 

We’ve discussed before that the tacit knowledge can not be captured within any written form. Therefore the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” can only refer to the tacit knowledge held by others. The tacit knowledge is deployed in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules through the Job Order system. Since it is knowledge that “normally requires some sort of qualitative coordination - for example, through direction and command - for its efficient use.” There are three critical elements for coordination of operations in these two modules of the Preliminary Specification.

• The Knowledge captured in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.”
• The “Planning & Deployment Interface” including AFE’s and Job Orders.
• The Military Command & Control Metaphor.

Therefore the interface elements of the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” will contain knowledge of “what” and “how” regarding production or the operation of concern. Times when the tacit knowledge needs to be documented will have to be replaced by rich media and references to the appropriate individuals for the operation to be undertaken. We should note that the knowledge is often distributed knowledge carried out by multi-person tasks. All of these tasks should be captured for one operation and included as one capability in the interface. Dealing with these different types of knowledge is how the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules “capabilities” are defined.

As I stated in the opening, the culture of the industry also has an influence on the design of these modules. These conditions reference the boundary of the firms and markets and determine the changes that will be needed. Since we are dealing with the service industry, and all but the smallest number of producers practice sourcing their field operations from the market. We are consistent with the culture of the industry. Nonetheless Professor Langlois notes three factors are important. Application of this framework to the methods used in the Preliminary Specification provides an understanding of the choices that were made.

• The pattern of existing capabilities in firms and market. Are existing capabilities distributed widely among many distinct organizations, [Yes] or are they contained importantly within the boundaries of large firms? [No] p. 360
• The nature of the economic change called for. When technological developments or changes in relative prices generate a profit opportunity, does seizing that opportunity require a systemic reorganization of capabilities [No] (including the learning of new capabilities), or can change proceed in autonomous fashion along the lines of an existing division of labor? [Yes] p. 360
• The extent of the market and the level of development of market supporting institutions. To what extent can the needed capabilities be tapped through existing arrangements, and to what extent must they be created from scratch? [Existing] To what extent are there relevant standards and other market-supporting institutions? [Good] p. 360

I have answered the questions in the [ ] provided. The service industry is robust and dynamic. What is needed is for the oil and gas producers to build the interfaces described here. Once they have their capabilities documented and deployed in such a manner the natural evolution of the service industry will continue, although at a faster pace and with more competitive offerings.

The question that we have to ask ourselves is why should we focus on capabilities in the oil and gas industry? I think it is because we have lost the ability to respond to market signals and initiate new and innovative thinking. These next two points will ask the difficult questions that should be asked in terms of “what” and “how” the industry has been operated and what should be done to correct these behaviors. The Research & Capabilities module, along with the other modules of the Preliminary Specification enable the oil and gas producer, and particularly the Joint Operating Committee, to act in their best interests.

In the Preliminary Research Report I suggested that the oil and gas industry was not fundamentally different than the former Soviet Union in terms of its ways and means. Going through the motions and determining “best practices” shows a state of stagnation that is very close to death, in my opinion. We see the natural gas prices that everyone watches but no one does anything about. Everyone complains about the service industry, but no one does anything about it. The market system hasn’t existed in the oil and gas industry for so long, no one even knows what it would look like. From Professor Richard Langlois book “The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism” chapter 1.

The question, then, is clear: why did managerial coordination supersede the price system? Why did “managerial capitalism” supersede “market capitalism” in many important sectors of the American economy beginning in the late nineteenth century? p. 9

To reinstate the market and the dynamism of the market system in the oil and gas industry will require new systems to identify and support innovative producers, suppliers and Joint Operating Committees. The Research & Capabilities module is designed to enable the systemic thinking that is necessary for the earth science and engineering capabilities of the producer and Joint Operating Committees to act in dynamic, innovative and market fashion.

The parallel of the current system to the former Soviet Union is striking when you realize the pervasiveness of the non-thinking environment. From Professor Langlois’ “Economic Institutions and the Boundaries of the Firm: The Case of Business Groups.”

Indeed, traditional command-style economies, such as that of the former USSR, appear to be able only to mimic those tasks that market economies have performed before; they are unable to set up and execute original tasks. The [Soviet] system has been particularly effective when the central priorities involve catching up, for then the problems of knowing what to do, when and how to do it, and whether it was properly done, are solved by reference to a working model, by exploiting what Gerschenkron . . . called the “advantage of backwardness.” ... Accompanying these advantages are shortcomings, inherent in the nature of the system. When the system pursues a few priority objectives, regardless of sacrifices or losses in lower priority areas, those ultimately responsible cannot know whether the success was worth achieving. The central authorities lack the information and physical capability to monitor all important costs—in particular opportunity costs—yet they are the only ones, given the logic of the system, with a true interest in knowing such costs. (Ericson, 1991, p. 21).

This is the one culture of the industry that we are moving against. It is also the most powerful. Management control the budget and have exercised it by not supporting People, Ideas & Objects. Show me an ERP system with the depth of research into oil and gas that the Preliminary Specification has, well there are none. They all get financed on relationships with maintaining the status-quo with management. The fact that there has been no funding proves that management are too conflicted to do the right thing in this regard. The decision to proceed will be taken out of their hands and the investors and the C class executives will have to make the decision to fund People, Ideas & Objects. After all they have some concerns with management as well.

There are however some truths that we should consider and make sure that we understand. These quotations are taken from Professor Richard Langlois book “The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler and the New Economy.”

As soon as we go into details and inquire into the individual items in which progress was most conspicuous, the trail leads not to the doors of those firms that work under conditions of comparatively free competition but precisely to the doors of the large concerns – which, as in the case of agricultural machinery, also account for much of the progress in the competitive sector – and a shocking suspicion dawns upon us that big business may have had more to do with creating [the modern] standard of life than with keeping it down. (Schumpeter 1950 [1976, p. 82].) p. 2

There is no denying that the management revolution has taken the oil and gas industry to a scope and scale that is impressive and productive. The question is where do we go from here? We currently stand on the shoulders of giants and have absolutely no vision, no plan and no means in which to approach the future demands of society's needs for energy. We not only have no plan for the future we run the risk of failure of the existing “management” infrastructure. We have far to fall. Management have failed before, and when they do fail, they leave it for the bond holders and investors to clean up the mess, while they look for greener fields elsewhere.

There is no question how economic growth will occur. That is from organizational change. But I think that it is intended to be as a result of constructive action not as a result of atrophy and inaction.

Institutions may be the ultimate drivers of economic growth, but organizational change is the proximate cause. As Smith tells us in the first sentence of The Wealth of Nations, what accounts for “the greatest improvement in the productive power of labour” is the continual subdivision of that labor (Smith 1976, I.i.1). Growth in the extent of the market makes it economical to specialize labor to tasks and tools, which increases productivity – and productivity is the real wealth of nations. As the benefits of the resulting increases in per capita output find their way into the pockets of consumers, the extent of the market expands further, leading to additional division of labor – and so on in a self-reinforcing process of organizational change and learning (Young 1928; Richardson 1975). p. 3

With the selection of ERP systems like SAP the management have secured their future in a bureaucratic and stifling maze of paper. Change occurs in decades and centuries for an application that has no concept of a Joint Operating Committee or even what a partner is. In this day and age, when the organization is defined and supported by the software it uses it is critical that the organization be supported by a software development capability like that which People, Ideas & Objects proposes. Otherwise you set your organization in the proverbial SAP like concrete that only today’s bureaucracies are pleased with.

Economic growth is about the evolution of a complex structure (Langlois 2001). p. 6

It is in the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification that the producer firm is able to exercise their opportunities for economic growth. By developing their capabilities and documenting them within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” they are able to populate these capabilities to the various Joint Operating Committees that they have an interest in. Reducing the costly experimentation of innovation yet opening up the assets of the firm to the innovations.

Economic growth is fundamentally about the emergence of new economic opportunities. The problem of organization is that of bringing existing capabilities to bear on new opportunities or of creating the necessary new capabilities. Thus, one of the principal determinants of the observed form of organization is the character of the opportunity – the innovation – involved. The second critical factor is the existing structure of relevant capabilities, including both the substantive content of those capabilities and the organizational structure under which they are deployed in the economy. p. 13

This previous quote captures so much of what we should be concerning ourselves with. I think it also shows that by using the Joint Operating Committee, and structuring the development and deployment of capabilities in the processes of the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules achieves much of what is discussed.

To expand the economic performance of the oil and gas producer requires that you focus on their competitive advantages of their land and asset base, and earth science and engineering capabilities. The Research & Capabilities module focuses on the producers earth science and engineering capabilities and provides the means in which to document them, expand them, deploy them, and most importantly innovate off of them. Professor Richard Langlois in his book “The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism: Schumpeter, Chandler and the New Economy.”

Indeed, the job of the entrepreneur is precisely to introduce new knowledge. The “Circular Flow of Economic Life” is a state in which knowledge is not changing. Economic growth occurs at the hands of entrepreneurs, who bring into the system knowledge that is qualitatively new – knowledge not contained in the existing economic configuration. p. 27

As we have learned “knowledge beget capabilities, and capabilities beget action” and capabilities are the “knowledge, skills and experience” of the people involved. People, Ideas & Objects are working to bring these systems to the oil and gas industry. Systems that provide the computers with the work that they do best and with work that people do best, ideas. So that capabilities should be comprised of knowledge, skills, experience and ideas. The Research & Capabilities module enables the producers capabilities to be captured and deployed in innovative ways.

There has to be a mechanism by which new knowledge enters the system. And that mechanism cannot be rational calculation, for as David Hume (1978, p. 164) long ago observed, “no kind of reasoning can give rise to a new idea.” p. 27

and

What has been done already has the sharp-edged reality of all things which we have seen and experienced; the new is only the figment of our imagination. Carrying out a new plan and acting according to a customary one are things as different as making a road and walking along it. p. 27

This next quotation is focused on a specific type of innovation. The type of innovation that People, Ideas & Objects is bringing to the oil and gas industry. However, the conclusion I think is universal in its application to capabilities of all types, and not just organizational capabilities. And that is that “those capabilities were the result, not the cause, of the innovation.” This is the primary reason that Research was grouped together within a module with Capabilities, they have a strong interaction with one another.

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 came to possess organizational capabilities, as it surely did, those capabilities were the result, not the cause, of the innovation. p. 46

As we move to the Knowledge & Learning module we’ll deal with the deployment of these capabilities in the Joint Operating Committee.

Two Primary Processes of Innovation

We have been discussing the coordination of operations and how that is organized in the People, Ideas & Objects Research & Capabilities module. Coordination of operations is only one of the things that is carried out in the module, innovation is another. To refresh our memory, the primary process in which innovation is carried out in the Preliminary Specification is as follows.

The producer firm through its interactions with the service industry develops new and innovative capabilities that are captured and documented in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” The interactions with the service industry are through a variety of interfaces in both the Research & Capabilities and Resource Marketplace modules. Using the football analogy this is the practice field where the team is developing new and innovative plays to be worked on and perfected before game day. Game day is when the capabilities are published in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” which enables them to be seen in all of the Joint Operating Committees that the producer has an interest in. This process enables the producer firm to eliminate the unnecessary “trial & error” learning from being repeated in each and every Joint Operating Committee. The learning can be done once, and therefore limit the cost of the innovation by reducing the unnecessary experimentation. As I stated this is the primary process of innovation.

If there was a secondary or optional process of innovation in the Research & Capabilities module it would be based on the following. This is from Professor Richard Langlois’ paper “Innovation Process and Industrial Districts.”

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

Opportunities do occur at times and in places that are not planned for. Innovation is something that frequently falls within this description.

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

To preclude the opportunities for these types of discoveries to be acted upon would leave the spontaneity out of the oil and gas industry. When faced with the knowledge that is provided to the user of the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” some things may become obvious that were not so before. Serendipity is a word that is used in economics quite frequently. We should adopt it here to ensure that a dynamic and innovative nature of the industry is the result.

But there is more that we are doing in this secondary process then we have done in the first process. We are building on the already well established capabilities of the producer firms of the Joint Operating Committees, and, we are exposing the collective knowledge to the broader community of earth scientists and engineers of the Joint Operating Committee. This broadening of the scope of users is at the same time there is limiting of the focus to just that Joint Operating Committee. Professor Langlois notes.

When accompanied by close social relationships, tight geographical proximity may affect innovation in ways that are less common in more highly dispersed environments. For example, an awareness of common problems can encourage several firms, or their suppliers and customers, to seek solutions, leading to multiple results that can be tested competitively in the market. pp. 1- 2

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

What is therefore needed is a means to capture innovations that arise from this secondary process. Turn them into the primary innovation process so that they can be further populated throughout the various Joint Operating Committees that the firm participates in. That will limit the amount of trial and error learning costs that might occur if each Joint Operating Committee were to field test their own innovations based on the ideas they heard from so and so.

Conclusion

The Research & Capabilities module enables the producer firm to structure a division of labor between those that will develop the research and innovations within the producer firm, and those that will implement the innovations within the Joint Operating Committees. This is one of the major processes that is carried out in the module. Another major process is that it provides the innovative oil and gas producer with the ability to move the knowledge and capabilities to where the decision rights are held. This module is at the core of the innovative oil and gas producer. Identifying and supporting the key elements of “what” and “how” innovation requires.

Final - Preliminary Specification - AV

Introduction

We now shift our attention to the Accounting Voucher module. The interactions between the Accounting Voucher and the Partnership Accounting modules of the Preliminary Specification are naturally quite significant. They both being accounting modules, it is natural that they have high levels of integration. The Accounting Voucher is unique in that it brings to the producer the ability to design transactions and the Material Balance Report. These are not innovations that the producer will use to become more innovative but are provided to ensure that the innovative producers processes are actively defined and supported through out the People, Ideas & Objects application modules.  When the business is a science, as it is in oil and gas, it would be in the producers interest to remain open and flexible in both its scientific and business approach. The Accounting Voucher and Partnership Accounting modules provide that organizational flexibility.

The manner in which these two modules operate is as follows. The Accounting Voucher captures the transactions. Partnership Accounting reports on the transactions. Accounting Vouchers remain open for one accounting period and are subject to the same closing process that is familiar and traditional in the accounting world.

We noted in the Partnership Accounting module how the Work Order enabled the producer with the ability to form and participate in working groups. Providing a flexibility in participating and accounting for these working groups. This flexibility is what is being sought after in the rest of the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee from these accounting modules. Elimination of the bureaucratic inertia that impedes these activities today makes these modules critical to a producers innovation as much as the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning modules do.

The People, Ideas & Objects Accounting Voucher Module will provide the means for the application to “manage the disparate inter-dependencies of modularity theory and Transaction Cost Economics.” That is a summary application of Professor Baldwin's comments and theories. And therefore this Accounting Voucher is one of the key cross roads to all other modules in the People, Ideas & Objects application. What this means is it’s necessary for people to cease in processing transactions, by way of automation, and move toward the definition and design of transactions to optimize the business of the producer and Joint Operating Committees performance.

Vouchers, Open To All Within the Partnership

One of the implications of using the People, Ideas & Objects system is that each partner will have access to the Accounting Voucher during the time that a Voucher is either open or closed. Each of the producers involved in the JOC are therefore able to access the Accounting Voucher and have costs / revenues distributed to the other partners involved in the Joint Operating Committee. This is one of the key differences that we had discussed in the Petroleum Lease, and Resource Marketplace modules. Partners are all contributing to the joint account as equal participants with the role of “operator” being relegated to a thing of the past. (Note too of course, that each participant is able to charge their own account with their own 100% charges. These charges are to their private accounts and therefore not seen by any of the other participants.)

Cost control becomes an issue when everyone is able to charge freely to the joint account. A careful reading of the previous paragraph reflects that I didn’t state “charge freely." Cost control comes about as a result of the traditional budgetary control of AFE and the Work Order system that we have discussed in the Partnership Accounting module. Without pre-approval by the partnership nothing is able to be processed by the People, Ideas & Objects software applications. And as we have seen in the discussion of the Security & Access Control module, few will have the authorization to “charge freely” to the joint account in any form or fashion.

With the traditional ability to charge to an AFE or Cost Center, and possibly during the development of the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification, the user community determines the need to have a purchase order system, ensuring that an appropriate bidding and contracting process is in place, no unauthorized amount will be accepted in the system. There is also the fact that each voucher needs to be approved for payment before any money is expended and that approval would need to consider the authority of the joint account.

As one can envision these Joint Operating Committee - Accounting Vouchers can become large as they include all of the business of the property. Accountants would be frustrated at month-end trying to get these Vouchers closed if they had to seek approvals and close each of the transactions within the appropriate small window of time of their month end. Needless to say that each transaction within the Accounting Voucher is a small subset of the larger Accounting Voucher and can be dealt with as a stand alone individual item. Seeking its own approvals and authorizations that deal with just the domain of the specific transaction.

What is different in People, Ideas & Objects Accounting Voucher system vs what exist today is the elimination of the designation of operator. The capabilities for each producer to house the state of the art earth science and engineering resources necessary to run all of the properties within one oil and gas firm is believed to be beyond what is possible in the future. The solution is the further specialization of earth science and engineering skills and pooling of the resources of the partnership within the Joint Operating Committee.

The Material Balance Report

The Material Balance Report is an Accounting Voucher that is unique and has the following characteristics. It is designed to deal with the automation of the production, revenue and royalties of the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee. It is this type of special use of an Accounting Voucher that the user community should consider when contributing to the Preliminary Specification.

What is proposed in People, Ideas & Objects Material Balance Report is that for an Accounting Voucher to close it must balance the financial debits and credits, but must also from a volumetric perspective material balance, system balance and partnership balance. Each of these volumetric perspectives being accessed through a different “mode” within the voucher to make the necessary changes to correct any volumetric imbalances or errors.

The Joint Operating Committee is not a legal entity. It is a thing that exists as a result of legal agreements and in the minds of oil men and women. It therefore doesn’t own anything or incur any costs. All of the charges to the joint account must clear in the month they are incurred to the producers. It is the same situation for the volumetric information. The Joint Operating Committee "Accounting Voucher" balances to zero in terms of costs and volumes each month by clearing its charges to the ownership and royalty owners of the property.

Note that the clearing is done after the balance. That does not guarantee that the facility will remain in balance. Adjustments and amendments to the Accounting Voucher may occur. These may happen and they can be subsequently cleared to the partnership accounts.

The point of the exercise is that you have the business of the Joint Operating Committee being captured in the Material Balance Report which is an integral part of the Accounting Voucher. Essentially all three are the same thing. (JOC, Accounting Voucher, Material Balance Report.) An integrity of reporting that is embedded within the accounting systems that is as rigid as debits must equal credits.

We now want to talk about the contracts that the products produced may have associated with that JOC. Contracts that would include marketing for gas, oil, natural gas liquids, or contracts for charges for gathering, processing etc. I don’t know what the correct term that should be used, but stream seems to me to be the most intuitive. If a stream of product was flowing through a facility, then a contract for processing or sale could be attached to it. The ability to attach a contract to a stream would enable the Accounting Voucher to establish the billing of gathering or processing charges / sale for that stream. These charges (invoices) or sales (receipts) being generated in an automated fashion by the People, Ideas & Objects software.

The Accounting Voucher is a for lack of a better term a template that is built upon as time passes. Each month as the property changes, these changes are captured within each Accounting Voucher and the template is renewed each month with the new information. If a new contract was added for the production from a new well, then that contract stream and the new well would be represented in the next month's Accounting Vouchers. The Accounting Voucher documents the changes in the property over time.

Critical to the “definition and design” of transactions is the fact that these transactions are balancing themselves out. If the debits and credits were not in balance at the end of the day, then the automation of the systems and the accountants would not be doing their jobs. The same could be said for the volumetric reporting. If in the Material Balance Reports, they were out of balance (call this material balance), or were not balancing the inputs and outputs to other Material Balance Reports (call this system balance), or the internal accounting of those volumes to the partners, royalty holders and others were out of balance (call this partnership balance) the accountants and systems would not be doing their jobs. Simply the process of closing the Accounting Voucher will need to consider not only the balancing of the debits and credits from a financial point of view. They will also need to ensure that the material, system and partnership volumes reported in the Material Balance Report are also in balance. Without these systems in balance, the Accounting Voucher will not close.

This imposes another rather strict provision on the quality of the information that is accepted into the People, Ideas & Objects Accounting Voucher module. Precluding the acceptance of a voucher due to the inability to balance a volumetric requirement holds the system up for what could be a fairly common occurrence. What if the volumetric information is unavailable in a timely fashion? What if the information is part of the normal amendment process? Then we are left with the traditional accounting methods of dealing with these types of issues. An accrual of the volumes in order to achieve the balancing necessary should be able to be processed in the current month. These accruals would then be automatically reversed in the following months Material Balance Report. What is different from existing systems is that we are enforcing the systems to balance. Not just inputting key variables, imposing the facts of what actually happened at the facility, or if the facility is subject to a comprehensive Construction, Ownership and Operation agreement, what is agreed to.

The difference may be subtle but the implication is significant. Locking the volumetric balancing, over the long term, into the Accounting Voucher itself enforces the system to follow the volumes as produced and processed. Once this is achieved a certain level of integrity is achieved and then the automation of detailed processes based on those volumes can begin and be assured to be based on the facts of the facilities and assets.

Purchase Order Systems

Its very 1970’s ish to be thinking of a Purchase Order system. The 1970’s is the last time that I can think of any one ever using one. (It certainly might be used in the larger firms, however, I am unaware of this.) The practicality and usefulness of these systems seemed to have receded in the 1980’s and no one has considered their existence since. Now we talk in terms of Supply-Chains, however oil and gas doesn’t have a “supply-chain” as the term is used. Supply chains are for retail and manufacturing. Purchasing is for oil and gas.

I would reiterate that the use of a Purchase Order system is something that the user community needs to determine if it wants one. I see substantial value in building one and have attempted to document how that value can be realized.

The Purchase Order system is part of the Accounting Voucher in that it is a necessary part of the processing of any large capital item. The use and application of the AFE, Cost Centre or Lease charge code remains the same irrespective of the Purchase Orders existence or not. There is no change in the coding structure as a result of the inclusion of the purchase order number. The Accounting Voucher relies on the Purchase Order for further approval of the specific contract dealing with a particular vendor on a specific project.

There are a number of cases where the management of the vendor relationship needs to have special considerations. Particularly in oil and gas where the details of the project are specific and large. Engineering contracts for the building of gas plants, pipelines and facilities are some of the examples. Situations where the contract must meet certain criteria and the vendor must qualify to meet those criteria during a bidding process. Its of concern to the producers that the firm that is chosen is capable of undertaking the work that is described. It is not just a lowest cost and the bid wins type of contract bidding process. This overall bidding process falls under the larger Purchase Order process of the Preliminary Specifications Accounting Voucher.

Once the vendor has been selected then the approval of the invoices is subject to the terms and conditions of the contract. Any prepayments or partial payments can be processed on the basis of the strength of the Purchase Order document and the final payment is subject to the satisfactory completion of the contract. If the contract is subject to any holdbacks and other conditions, then those would be applied within the Accounting Vouchers payments.

The Purchase Order system is designed to provide the producer(s) with a level of control over large contracts. Something that is done frequently in oil and gas. By managing the bidding process and providing a level of control over the contract in terms of making and controlling the payment process. The Purchase Order, I think is a valuable tool in any producers system. Having these contained within the Accounting Voucher of the Preliminary Specification is the natural placement of these control processes. See also the Resource Marketplace module for discussion of the Oracle Purchasing and Procurement module that has been included in the Preliminary Specification.

Two Distinct Sources of Revenue

Professor Giovanni Dosi’s paper discusses the role of innovation in the market economy and assumes companies in a free market are willing to invest in science and technologies to advance the competitive nature of their product offering or internal processes. The key aspects of Professor Dosi’s theories that make them directly applicable to oil and gas are the innovation theories application to earth science and engineering disciplines. These disciplines are key to the capability and success of oil and gas firms search, and production of hydrocarbons. The investment in science and technologies is with the implicit expectation of a return on these investments, but also, to provide the firm with additional structural competitive advantages by moving their products costs and / or capabilities beyond that of the competition. Professor Dosi notes:

Thus, I shall discuss the sources of innovation opportunities, the role of markets in allocating resources to the exploration of these opportunities and in determining the rates and directions of technological advances, the characteristics of the processes of innovative search, and the nature of the incentives driving private agents to commit themselves to innovation.

The producer firm is committed to developing their capabilities with the understanding that they advance their competitive advantages, and, earn a return on their investment. How within the People, Ideas & Objects application does the producer earn a return on their investment in their capabilities? The most obvious answer is through direct charges to the joint account. That is to say that the people (representing the producers capabilities) who are pooled into a Joint Operating Committee, have been assigned a role within the Military Command & Control Metaphor and whose costs are captured in the Partnership Accounting module are recovering a “revenue” stream for the producers capabilities.

The question then becomes what is the charge for the individual during the time that they are working in the Joint Operating Committee. It will be easy to determine the hours that have worked in the various JOC’s. Whether through the Work Order or through other means, the ability to capture the time spent will be available and accurate in the People, Ideas & Objects system. The hourly rate would need to include a number of factors. The skills of the individual, the technical resources of the producer firm that is at the disposal of the individual, and also a measure of the level of innovativeness of the producer firm, say something like Revenue Per Employee that reflects the overall productivity of the firm.

Once they have factored these elements in they could then assign an hourly rate to each individual in their firm and ensure that so many hours of their year are charged to the various joint accounts that they have an interest in. With the advanced level of systems automation that we are using, we can charge the joint accounts based on the hours worked each month based on the charge out rate of each individual in the producer firm.

The net result of this is that the revenues should exceed the costs and the producer will have captured a return on their investment in the capabilities that they have developed within their firm. To proceed on any other basis would, I think, be unreasonable.

It comes down to the question of what business is it that the producer is in? Are they in the business of generating profits from producing oil and gas, or are they in the business of generating profits from providing geologists and engineers to the operations they have an interest in? If we look at the competitive advantages of the producer it is the land and asset base, and the earth science and engineering capabilities that they apply to that asset base. Clearly both production and capabilities development are within the scope of the business of the oil and gas producer. And to a large extent the costing of the technical resources is not fundamentally different from what occurs today. In today’s market, the operator is provided with “overhead allowances” for the capture of some of these costs. The difference from today and what is proposed here is that the elimination of the concept of an operator by “pooling” the technical resources of the Joint Operating Committee participants to acquire the necessary capabilities.

To take this opportunity to charge the costs of the capabilities of the producer firm and earn a return on investment may be the issue that some people will have with the concept. In a world where the market for engineers and geologists is highly competitive. And you as a producer are assessed on your performance based on Revenue Per Employee. The acquisition of additional technical resources is a difficult process that has implications to your firm. The ability to offset some of the overall costs of your technical resources helps to mitigate these issues in the short term. This is the purpose for enabling the direct billing of technical resources to the joint account in the Accounting Voucher.

When we get to the review of the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules during this innovation review. We will see the development of these capabilities from an innovative point of view will take on a different perspective. The ability to capture this development of a firm's technical resources as an investment, and have them as a source of revenue here in the Accounting Voucher is what I want to establish. Looking at the development of the producer, it is somewhat of a paradox as to which is developed first, the land base or the capabilities. With the ability to have the capabilities generate their own revenue stream the paradox is resolved in the short term, in that capabilities development is expected to earn a return on investment.

Some may suggest that these costs offset the production revenues of the Joint Operating Committee that would have gone to the producer anyways. And that may be true. However, in a world where the demands for the technical resources are expected to be as significant as some suggest. The need to deal with the problem on a wholesale basis, as People, Ideas & Objects pooling concept does, is a requirement, and secondly, the assumption that everyone else will develop their technical capabilities might be false.

Agreement to Withhold Capacity

One area that has been difficult for the oil and gas producer to deal with is the volatile energy prices. With the costs of production and reserve replacement increasing and the reserve depletion on such a rapid pace, the decline in energy prices can have a material effect on the value captured from a field. With every producer producing at capacity, this risk of price declines comes into play more frequently then maybe needs to be realized. The question is therefore asked, what if, there was agreement in the Petroleum Lease Marketplace and implementation in the Accounting Vouchers Material Balance Report of the Preliminary Specification, to limit the production at certain thresholds based on predetermined commodity prices?

We can accurately tell what the costs of reserves and production costs are and there are many times when these exceed the prices that are received in the marketplace. The North American natural gas marketplace is a very good example of this situation. Selling at a loss may fuel the short term cash flow situation however, it is at the long term expense of reserve replacements. In a highly innovative oil and gas marketplace, the costs of innovation are being funded by the commodity prices. However, these costs may exceed the temporary fluctuations in the market prices for the commodities. Is it wise for the producer to continue to produce at capacity?

What if the agreement that governs the Joint Operating Committee has the partnership agreeing to shutting in of production when the price of the commodity drops below x value. The situation would help to mitigate the loss of earnings on the reserves and not materially affect the cash flow of the operation. The global implications of many producers implementing this type of price based production profile would put a floor on the commodity prices. A floor based on the marginal costs of reserve replacement.

The implementation of the production decreases would be triggered in the Petroleum Lease Marketplace and signaled to the Material Balance Report. One area that we have not yet discussed in detail is the field data capture that is implicit in the Material Balance Report. This signal from the Petroleum Lease Marketplace module would then shut-in the production when the prices realized are below the level set in the trigger.

Selling at a loss is a fools game. The political issues surrounding the shutting-in production are something that might make some wince. However, the reality is that the costs of production and reserve replacement are escalating and the volatility in the commodity prices only seems to be becoming more prevalent. With shale gas costs in North America being as high as they are, who would contemplate producing at these prices? In many ways we are our own worst enemies.

This scenario of price driven production adjustments will be part of the Preliminary Specification. If producers decide to use it, it will be their choice. I think it is necessary with the situation in the energy market that the producer has some protection of their investment from the volatility and political influences of the commodity marketplace.

And when we talk about the capabilities of the innovative oil and gas producer. The Accounting Voucher module of the Preliminary Specification doesn’t necessarily come immediately to mind. Yet it is an important element in the capabilities that we have been detailing here in the Preliminary Specification. Particularly when we are moving to the “decentralized production” model from the “high throughput production” model that the industry is currently configured as.

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 other modules we have detailed how the overhead costs of production, revenue and royalty and other accounting related costs associated with the property would not be incurred during periods when the facility was shut-in. The accountants these costs are representative of, are part of service providers and not directly employed by any of the specific producers. As such their service offerings were based on billings that were transaction driven, and therefore without production, no transactions were created to drive their billings. Hence no overhead, like accounting costs, would be incurred at the facility where the production was shut-in. The Accounting Voucher can be a further check and balance on the “decentralized production” model by ensuring that no overhead charges for the months are incurred if no production occurred.

Designing Transactions

One area of the Accounting Voucher that we have not been very clear in getting our point across is the concept of designing transactions. We should spend some time on defining what it is that we are speaking of. What accountants will be spending their time on in the future is the designing of transactions and leaving the processing of transactions to the computers. If you have been reading the Preliminary Specification you will have an understanding of the methods of organization of the marketplace and the producer firm. And how the Joint Operating Committee interacts with these. It will be with that understanding that we can begin to understand the concept of designing transactions. So let us begin with a simple description of the transactions makeup. From Harvard Professors Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark.

...objects that are transacted must be standardized and counted to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved. Also in a transaction, there must be valuation on both sides and a backward, compensatory transfer - consideration paid by the buyer to the seller. Each of these activities - standardizing, counting, valuing, compensating - adds a new set of task and transfers to the overall task and transfer network. Thus it is costly to convert even the simplest transfer into a transaction.

Let's use a scenario where a group of small producers have four producing wells of natural gas with some liquids production. They are situated next to a large gas plant that processes their gas in exchange for the liquids and markets their gas on the spot market. In this scenario we are evaluating these properties from the perspective of including them in the Preliminary Specification. And we begin by analyzing the production accounting elements in the Accounting Voucher with the Production Accounting Service Provider in the area.

The Production Accounting Service Provider assesses their fees on the basis of a unit of work incurred during the production month. For example this might include reading a gas chart, meter reading, Material Balance Report etc. At each point they assess a standard fee for service. This then goes to their billing process and at the end of the month is billed to their clients based on the work output. This imputes that someone has designed their billing and work flow from a transaction design point of view. Professors Baldwin and Clark.

The user and Producer need to deploy knowledgeable in their own domains, but each needs only a little knowledge about the other's. If labor is divided between two domains and most task-relevant information hidden with each one, then only a few, relatively simple transfers of material, energy and information need to pass between the domains. p. 17

and

Placing a transaction - a shared definition, a means of counting, and a means of payment - at the completed transfer point allows the decentralized magic of the price system to go to work. p.22

Again if there is no production there is no basis for the Production Accounting Service Providers billing. Fulfilling the decentralized production model objective. This scenario shows how the Production Accounting Service Provider had designed their transactions to produce their billings. Their accountants were not concerned about the processing of transactions, but the processes of billings in a fully automated manner. This is the role of the Accounting Voucher for the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee. Automation of the business processes of the innovative oil and gas industry through transaction design.

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... Frederick Hayek (1945)

The Accounting Voucher has the “Transaction Design Interface” that provides a worksheet for accountants to design transactions. There is a defined process of analysis of how to break down these transactions and we will get into that as we proceed through the Preliminary Specification. It is important to recall at this point that each Accounting Voucher can be used as a template for subsequent months. So once a transaction is designed, it can be reused through the implementation of it as an Accounting Voucher template.

The role of the Accounting Voucher in defining the source of the market or the firm as the originator of the transaction is minimal. However, it has a role in ensuring the costs of these transactions are minimal and are a source of the firms profitable operations. We can all envision a power mad accountant with an entourage of underlings going off to solve the next great accounting issue. These costly nightmares occur every once in awhile, maybe People, Ideas & Object is the latest manifestation of this sickness. Having the ability to design transactions should be a value added process, not an exercise with no purpose. If there was a simple way to describe this purpose it would be as a tool to coordinate the firm or Joint Operating Committees use of the market.

This conceptually falls between transaction costs economics, capabilities and transaction design. All three are areas that Professor Richard Langlois has included within his area of research. We have also used Professor Carliss Baldwin for her work in transaction design. Professor Richard Langlois in his paper "The secret life of mundane transaction costs."

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

One of our important goals here is to bring the capabilities view more centrally in the ken of economics. We offer it not as a finely honed theory but as a developing area of research whose potential remains relatively untapped. Moreover, we present the capabilities view not as an alternative to the transaction-cost approach but as complementary area of research pp. 7.

It is the Accounting Voucher module of the Preliminary Specification that takes the accountant away from the benign score keeper role to the role of active participant in the operation. One that looks at the market from the point of view of how best to coordinate the various elements to provide the greatest value add to the firm or Joint Operating Committee they are employed by. In Richard Langlois “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization"

A close reading of this passage suggests that Coase's explanation for the emergence of the firm is ultimately a coordination one: the firm is an institution that lowers the costs of qualitative coordination in a world of uncertainty. p. 11

And this is maybe one of the important considerations of the work that we do here in People, Ideas & Objects. Is the realization that each producer firm and each Joint Operating Committee are going to be unique. That due to their makeup they are going to be different in material ways. Innovation will have a dramatic scale in how it is measured against each firm or JOC. The approach will be anything but cookie cutter.

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

Therefore, according to the research of Professor Langlois the transaction costs will be an immaterial item in comparison between firms or Joint Operating Committees. That is to say that they will be the same in all instances. And People, Ideas & Objects have asserted that they will be immaterial due to the application of Information Technologies. However the differentiating costs between firms and JOC’s will be these costs of coordinating the market. Making the Accounting Voucher module a critical tool in the ability to offer the producer firm the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

... while transaction cost consideration undoubtedly explain why firms come into existence, once most production is carried out within firms and most transactions are firm-firm transactions and not factor-factor transactions, the level of transaction costs will be greatly reduced and the dominant factor determining the institutional structure of production will in general no longer be transaction costs but the relative costs of different firms in organizing particular activities. p 19

We have been discussing the Accounting Vouchers “Transaction Design Interface” and its purpose as a tool to coordinate the use of the market. We want to ensure that the efforts in coordinating the market are consistent with the objectives of the firm or the Joint Operating Committee and don’t conflict with the objectives of those who are initiating the work in the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning or other modules. As we can see coordination through the Accounting Voucher of the Preliminary Specification is focused on the business end of the transactions, not on the operational side.

The first question that most people will have is why are we concerned with the coordination of the markets in the Accounting Voucher? Here Professor Richard Langlois made the following comment in response to a question on his “Vanishing Hand” paper.

Here again, I think the problem is one of conceptual imprecision. It is perfectly common, and often unobjectionable, to contrast a market and an organization, that is, to contrast the institution called a market and the institution called an organization (such as, notably, a firm). But the opposite of “organization” in the abstract sense is not “market” but disorganization. More helpfully, the opposite of conscious organization is unplanned or spontaneous coordination. In this sense the market-organization spectrum (and similar spectra one could imagine) are arguably orthogonal to the planned-spontaneous spectrum. One could well wonder, as I have (Langlois 1995), whether large organizations do not in fact grow far more as the unplanned consequence of many individual decisions than as the result of the conscious planning of any individual or small group of individuals. And it is certainly the case that, as Alfred Marshall understood, both firms and markets “are structures for promoting the growth of knowledge, and both require conscious organization” (Loasby 1990, p. 120).

In this day and age, with such large distances, geographic, size, language and other, between vendors and producers leaving the coordination of the markets to “spontaneous order” is asking too much of human ingenuity. Particularly with the focus of the industry to a further division of labor and specialization, where the risk and reward of oil and gas operations are so great, market coordination or transaction design will be a critical and necessary task to be carried out. Each operation may be the result of more people being involved. Once again it is not from an operations point of view that we are attempting to influence the operation, it is from the business point of view. How will the transactions and business be captured in such a manner that the firm and Joint Operating Committee are incurring the lowest possible costs of the most efficient methods of these business transactions?

As Harvey Leibenstein long ago pointed out, economic growth is always a process of “gap-filling,” that is, of supplying the missing links in the evolving chain of complementary inputs to production. Especially in a developed and well functioning economy, one with what I like to call market-supporting institutions (Langlois 2003), such gap-filling can often proceed in important part through the “spontaneous” action of more-or-less anonymous markets. In other times and places, notably in less-developed economies or in sectors of developed economies undergoing systemic change, gap-filling requires other forms of organization — more internalized and centrally coordinated forms. p. 6

and

Let’s take a closer look at the nature of the “gaps” involved. Adam Smith tells us in the first sentence of The Wealth of Nations that what accounts for “the greatest improvement in the productive power of labour” is the continual subdivision of that labor (Smith 1976, I.i.1). Growth in the extent of the market makes it economical to specialize labor to tasks and tools, which increases productivity – and productivity is the real wealth of nations. As the benefits of the resulting increases in per capita output find their way into the pockets of consumers, the extent of the market expands further, leading to additional division of labor – and so on in a self-reinforcing process of organizational change and learning (Richardson 1975; Young 1928). p. 7

If we recall in the Resource Marketplace module the vendors and suppliers are maintaining their own contact data. Within that data is their key personnel that include their field staff. They should also be including their key business people for the purposes of the “Transaction Design Interface” to collaborate on these interfaces. In addition their billing information and banking data, as well as other critical data and information that will help the producer firm or Joint Operating Committee efficiently coordinate and process the transactions they are involved in. Lastly a collaborative interface should be provided for everyone within the Accounting Vouchers vendor pool to discuss how the transaction is designed.

Miscellaneous

One thing that we have not been able to discuss regarding the Accounting Voucher module of the Preliminary Specification, is the module is used for entry of all transactions for accounting purposes. Whether it is through the Material Balance Report, which is encapsulated within its own voucher, or a simple accounts payable voucher, everything that will be entered into the People, Ideas & Objects system is through an Accounting Voucher. And there will be different types of vouchers for different types of charges. Each with their own voucher series numbering. (For example all Material Balance Reports will be 200,000 series.) This also imposing somewhat of a strict Prepared By and Approved By process where everything that is entered into the system has high levels of accuracy, timeliness and authorization. This is somewhat contrary to the open and freewheeling style of data entry in Oracle Fusion Applications Financial Management Suite of modules. We will need to enhance Oracle’s Fusion Applications methods of accepting our view of Accounting Vouchers and the way they work. Needless to say we will be relying heavily on the Oracle Fusion Middleware layers Business Process Management Suite to provide us with this functionality in the Accounting Voucher. The base level General Ledger, Accounts Payable and Accounts Receivable are being used extensively here and we need to build these specific functions within the module.

Business is also in many cases, repetitive. The ability to reuse any Accounting Voucher as a template for subsequent months should be a feature of the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. This could include the use of firm wide forms such as expense accounts and petty cash. What is being intimated here is that the user interface of the Accounting Voucher needs to be user friendly. With high levels of intelligence and multiple ways of interacting with it.

Conclusion

As a result of the pooling concept that is a basic assumption of the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. Some of the Accounting Vouchers will be open to charges from multiple producers represented in the Joint Operating Committees that your producer firm is a participant in. The revenue, capital and operations of each of the Joint Operating Committees accounts are open to the direct debit and credit charges of all of the participants in the JOC.

The pooling concept has been developed as a replacement to the “operator” designation that currently exists. The ability for each producer to have the just-in-time capabilities available for all the properties they manage requires, on an industry wide basis, to have unused and unusable earth science and engineering capabilities. The ability to pool these critical resources from participating producers into the Joint Operating Committee releases these hoarded unused and unusable capabilities. The pooling concept also implies that some producers will provide other resources to the property in disproportionate amounts to their working interests. All producers need to contribute the skills, knowledge, experience and ideas that they have in an innovative oil and gas industry. Therefore each of these producers need to have the ability to charge their capabilities to the joint account. All charges are subject to the AFE or Work Orders budget requirements and cost control remains the domain of the Joint Operating Committees.

Professor Dosi (1988) states that profit motivated agents must involve both “the perception of some sort of opportunity and an effective set of incentives.” (p. 1135) Professor Dosi introduces the theory of Schmookler (1966) and asked “are the observed inter-sectoral differences in innovative investment the outcome of different incentive structures, different opportunities or both”? (p. 1135) Schmookler believed in differing degrees of economic activity derived from the same innovate inputs. It is People, Ideas & Objects assertion that the “different incentive structures” and “different opportunities” are facilitated or constrained by the administrative ease in which the producer operates.

The same can be stated for the Material Balance Report. If the producer is confident that the deal that was conceived is accurately captured in the Accounting Voucher. And the operation is therefore also reporting a substantial profit. Then they know that their innovations are working, their systems are working and the alignment of the legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural, communication, innovation, strategic, compliance and governance frameworks is achieved.