Different Perspectives on Data

There will be a large percentage of the data within the Petroleum Lease Marketplace that is public in nature. For example this data will include the lease documents themselves and reflect who the lessee is and the mineral rights held. Although this information is public in nature, that is its available from the lessor’s websites, there is little reason to hold it public in the Preliminary Specification from a producer point of view. Access to a producers or Joint Operating Committees data and information through the People, Ideas & Objects application modules via a public interface does not exist. Although the data and information may be accessible elsewhere, it is not available unless the individual has direct access granted through the Security & Access Control module.

Next there are areas where the data and information would be considered to be “partnership” or Joint Operating Committee in its nature. We have discussed the research project that the user community will undertake in the Preliminary Specification to determine if data will reside within the JOC or the producer. This is a good example of where the issue resides. If the agreements, leases and AFE’s are the same for all the producers why not store them within one location in the JOC and have access by the authorized producers? Then everyone is working from the same documents. Here’s where the Military Command & Control Metaphor will need to be sophisticated enough to enable the appropriate users from different producer firms to access these documents. Another consideration for the research project of the user community.

Then there is the private information that the producer generates that will be for strategic and tactical concerns that will be for the producers eyes only. These discussions could be regarding one of the agreements that should not end up in the “partnership” area. How does a firm maintain access to this critical information and ensure that it doesn't leak out to someone that it shouldn't? Please review the “Two Types of Data” section of the Security & Access Control module.

The Preliminary Specification also provides an interesting opportunity regarding the publication of aggregated data. It is in the context of the capital budgets of the producers. If producers were to maintain their expected capital budgets in reserve report format within the PLM, would they be interested in publishing that data in aggregate through the Resource Marketplace module. This data would be scrubbed of all pertinent proprietary information and only represent dollars, general geographical area and account classification. This information would provide the Resource Marketplace with information of approximately what the marketplace might look like in near future so that they could plan to meet the expected demand. And would provide the service industry with a better understanding of their marketplace.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Specialization and the Division of Labor

I want to discuss the manner in which People, Ideas & Objects software development team will support the division of labor and specialization in the Preliminary Specification and particularly in the Petroleum Lease Marketplace (PLM). We had discussed earlier in the PLM that the determination of where the data would reside, and hence where the people would work in the industry. Would the data be stored within the Joint Operating Committee or the producer. This was to be determined by the community based on their research. We also noted that with the division of labor and further specialization of the people that work in the industry required that maybe individuals might not work for a specific producer or Joint Operating Committee but instead work for a process that was billed for example as a service to a 1,000 JOC’s representing 200 firms. This discussion assumes that both situations, the data is stored at the JOC, and a process is managed by a dedicated team that employs the people who work for a variety of JOC’s representing many producer firms, is the case.

When we consider the global experience and understanding of the people that are employed in the oil and gas industry. We have many people today with a diversity of experience and understanding of the industry. When we think of the future, in order to deal with the ability to handle the greater volumes of work, we generally feel that there is a need to have a wholesale increase in the overall experience and understanding of the industry. But is this necessarily the case? With the division of labor and specialization we are able to rely on a level of experience and understanding of a few that understand the entire process, and assign the specifics to those that can specialize in their own specific domain of understanding. With each person taking care of their part of the process, at a high level of understanding, the entire process is managed with an efficiency and understanding that aggregates the skills of all of those people within the process. This is the advantage of specialization. And it enables the industry to undertake greater processing loads with the same resource levels.

Now let's assume for a moment that you had a group that processed all the lease rentals for all the JOC’s and producers that used People, Ideas & Objects proposed software applications. And this groups was a very specialized team of 20 people who were supported by the software development team and user community that People, Ideas & Objects is based upon. How would you divide up that work to make it more efficient? Would it be based on producer or JOC? I don't think so. Probably on the basis of rental due date, or maybe geographical location. One thing for certain the way that the work was organized would be fundamentally different than the way that lease rentals were organized within any firm or JOC today. No matter how large the producers size. The specialization that this service provider would be able to present would reduce the costs of lease rental processing and also increase the quality of the service the data and information that was presented. This is how we need to begin reorganizing some of the processes the industry depends upon. Here’s why.

How does the division of labor expand? That is to say, this lease rental process continues on and they find if they make a small change in the way they process this element of it, then they could save x% of time. This is the process of “gap filling” which makes inherent sense. Then the boss says ok, sounds great go do it. The problem today is that all of our processes are highly automated. And it would seem that People, Ideas & Objects are taking the Preliminary Specifications process automation further. Therefore the ability to change a process is heavily dependent on a software change. Which in the current environment is next to impossible. People, Ideas & Objects however are providing a software development capability. One that is available for the purposes of gap filling and supporting the user community needs. One that is designed to support innovation. Therefore the ability to make the change in the process and have the software updated to support the process change is available.

Making these software development changes at one service provider makes the process manageable. As opposed to the methods today of having to do this within each producer firm which doesn’t provide any efficiencies. That is in today’s environment, there are no efficiencies in terms of software development changes, and there is no scale in terms of the division of labor and specialization to apply to the volume of lease rental activity. It is also assumed in this example that the data is stored at the JOC and therefore the amount of lease rental data that is held at the JOC is relatively negligible, providing more support for centralizing the lease rental process under one service provider.

People, Ideas & Objects have introduced the concept of the Community of Independent Service Providers or service providers to initiate these types of process services. This is how the industry needs to reorganize themselves in order to attain the efficiencies and quality processes in the future. The example of lease rentals is only one of possibly hundreds of processes that could be handled in similar ways. If fact all of the administrative, accounting and overhead processes of the producer would be handled this way. The key competitive advantage of the innovative oil and gas producer is their land and asset base, and application of their earth science and engineering capabilities. The efficient development of internal administrative processes are not going to provide any producer with any competitive advantage or disadvantage. By developing processes in the manner that People, Ideas & Objects proposes provides all the producers with the most efficient and cost effective means of administrative management. And is one of the cornerstones of how we provide oil and gas producers with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Introduction to the Material Balance Report

The working interest distribution for the production from a well is fairly straightforward. Other than the changes that might occur such as before and after casing point elections, before and after payout etc, the values remain relatively constant over the life of the well. However, for gas plants and related facilities the distribution of production to the owners of the facilities is anything but constant. This brings into play a multitude of different ways to treat the ownership of the production and the costs of processing. The manner in which the accounting for that production and the cost of processing is of material concern to the owners of those facilities. In fact it is the difference between making a profit. The inability to grasp the scope of the concern has led many to disrupt the facility owners business.

The problem comes down to the fact that there are two different ways in which to calculate the working interest distribution of the throughput of the product through the facilities. One is to take the literal chemical reality of the situation, the other is to take what is agreed to by the owners and operators of the facilities in the Construction, Ownership & Operation (CO&O) agreement. The two worlds could not be more different. As you can imagine the agreed to situation has to rule the day. The facts of the agreed situation are very dynamic and create variances that are unique and depend on the situation that is in play that day. Irrespective of the production allocation, the Material Balance Report, a key report of the Partnership Accounting and Petroleum Lease Marketplace modules of the Preliminary Specification, will still balance and will also balance to the various other reports. The issue is the owners of the facility or the producers who have production processed through that plant or facility will have either sold or purchased product, or had conducted some transaction with their production at that facility that needs to be accounted for.

Now to handle that day-to-day activity there needs to be an ability for the plant owners to account for the transactions that are occurring within the plant based on the CO&O. Relying on the Partnership Accounting module will be part of what they will use for the handling of the plants accounting. However, because they can’t take a literal working interest distribution and they have to rely on a dynamic distribution based on the CO&O, a special algorithm will need to be built within the PLM to deal with the CO&O. This algorithm will capture the agreements production allocation methodology. This algorithm will be dynamic based on the gas composition, production factors and activities at the plant, but it is also is not fixed. There are changes to the algorithm on a month to month basis. As new wells are brought on, new functional units are brought on, new products are sold to new purchasers etc. these need to be taken into consideration into the algorithm.

In the current accounting world these “algorithms” are managed within spreadsheets. Not my favorite place to put a critical piece of business. I think that the user community can do something to embed these algorithms within the system so that they are more “mission critical” and less subject to human error. The Material Balance Report is the location for these algorithms.

As a plant owner the days of major changes are not over yet. There are still the equalizations that have to be calculated. These equalizations are sometimes run monthly but mostly done on an annual basis. They are done to correct any of the owners over / under capacity utilization during the year. If an owner owns 25% of the facility then generally they would not be billed processing for any of their throughput. However, at the end of the year it is determined that their actual throughput use was 29% then they would need to be charged for that 4% capacity that they overused. These calculations would also have an “algorithm” within the PLM for the Partnership Accounting module to use.

I would reiterate this is an area of extreme importance to the owners of the facilities in oil and gas. To handle these transactions appropriately is the manner in which People, Ideas & Objects is approaching this issue. As it stands today, I am certain no other software vendor fully comprehends the significance of these points and does not provide anywhere close to the level of functionality as we have proposed in these modules. See also the discussion of the Material Balance Report in the Partnership Accounting and Accounting Voucher modules.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Introduction to the Petroleum Lease Marketplace

The Petroleum Lease Marketplace (PLM) is I think the most interesting marketplace module as its objective is to replicate virtually what the physical oil and gas marketplace is. That begins of course with Petroleum Leases.

When we are replicating the physical oil and gas marketplace, the Petroleum Lease is the source document that is the common denominator of all activity and ownership within the industry. Any physical oil and gas assets will be attached to some lease, agreement, rights or concession granting the holders the rights and privileges of ownership, lease or rental. These are the things that are contained within a marketplace. They are what are purchased and sold, bargained and traded for. They are the things that people are recruited to provide services for. Generally a marketplace is a dynamic and evolving commercially oriented hub of activity. That is what we are replicating in the PLM.

When we look at the types of work that is carried out in the PLM we see a large group of administrators working within different areas within a producer firm. Whether it be the Land or Legal department, Production or Exploration Administration staff or Accounting people; all of these groups have an interest in the information, people, assets, documents, processes and functionality contained within the PLM.

The primary concern of the people in these groups is the information and data contained within the module. Its accuracy, access, and use by those within their firm, but also within the Joint Operating Committees that their firm has an interest in. Some of this data will be similar to the data that is held by their firms partners, and much of the data has been generated in a cooperative and collaborative manner by those partnerships.

For example AFE’s, Mail Ballots, agreements, are generated through interactions by each of the participants in the Joint Operating Committee. How much of this data and information could therefore be held by the Joint Operating Committee with an interface to the firm? This is a question that should be answered with significant research during the Preliminary Specification. To answer that question would also answer; for whom do those people we mentioned, the Land, Legal, Production and Exploration Administration and Accounting staff work for. The implications would be significant.

One of the greatest opportunities that we have in developing this system is to address the division of labor and specialization. To take these people’s work and to reorganize it across the industry, so that it was focused on the Joint Operating Committee but very specialized in terms of the tasks that they conduct. And apply those skills across the entire industry, or a geographical region, or some other classification. This is something that could provide significant increases in oil and gas industry productivity and overall cost savings. That is to say that an individual would work for a process that is billed to 1,000 Joint Operating Committees that might represent 200 Companies. By doing so the profitability of the industry is materially enhanced. For 2012 the opportunity costs from these changes were calculated at $94 billion. (Primarily through the ability to raise natural gas prices.)

When we were conducting our research. Professor Langlois noted that expansion of the division of labor and specialization was through the simple act of “gap-filling.” Work that wasn’t being done before, could-should-would, be nice if it was done now. In this day and age it might be easy to put the person in place, but what about the user community and software development capability to support that person? As I have suggested before, should we consider these administrative positions from the point of view that these people will work for a process as opposed to any one company or Joint Operating Committee?

The types of documents that are generated within the Petroleum Lease Marketplace are somewhat self-evident. (Recall we are including Land, Legal, Production Admin, Exploration Admin, Accounting and Others in the classifications.) Most of them are created in collaboration with the participants of the Joint Operating Committee and include: Authority for Expenditures (AFE"s), Capital Budgeting (Firm and JOC), Construction Ownership and Operating Agreements, Mail Ballots, Daily Drilling Reports, Lease Bonus, Lease Rental, Lease Taxes, Areas of Mutual Interest are some of the forms, processes and attributes of the Petroleum Lease Marketplace Module. A more detailed specification will be the result of the user communities contribution and commitments.

When I sat down to write the Draft Specification I wanted to incorporate the marketplace metaphor into the modules that made up the People, Ideas & Objects systems. There had been discussion of exchanges and web services in the past and those never quite captured the reality of what was possible. I think exchanges are technological solutions attempting to resolve non-existent business problems. Whereas the marketplace is a business reality. A reality that we can build a virtual technical environment that emulates the real marketplace. A big difference in terms of how we approach the building of these systems.

The next aspect was to determine what marketplaces existed in oil and gas that the technology would need to replicate? The answer to that question became quite simply. The marketplace for financial resources, secondly for the people, vendors and the service industry or as we have called them resources, and thirdly the P&NG leases. We therefore simply created three modules that replicate these three markets within the People, Ideas & Objects application. Talking about the output of the system should probably keep this simple fact in mind. That these are marketplaces. Marketplaces that are backed up by a user community and software development capability that can evolve the applications as these markets evolve.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Conclusion to the Resource Marketplace Module

The Resource Marketplace module, in combination with the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules is how the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer and Joint Operating Committee acquire their capabilities. The Resource Marketplace establishes thick markets for products and services from the service industries and service providers that are focused on the producer and Joint Operating Committees needs. Enabling the kind of operational control and flexibility that is necessary for the 21st century.

And it is here in the Resource Marketplace module that the capabilities to establish profitable operations is acquired. Through use of the decentralized production model the producer is able to remove their marginal production from the marketplace and save those reserves for a time when they will return a profit. When producers are able to remove their production from the marketplace without financial penalty then the downside risk in natural gas prices is mitigated. It is here in the Resource Marketplace module that the solution to profitable production of the shale gas reserves, or any gas reserves, is attained.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

People, Ideas & Objects and Oracle Corporation

What we expect to gain from the review of the Oracle products in the Resource Marketplace module and the rest of the Preliminary Specification is simple. To put some substance to the Preliminary Specification from the point of view of the generic ERP systems requirements. Using the Oracle Database, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Oracle Fusion Applications will provide a strong foundation for the innovative oil and gas industry.

Looking at the Oracle Fusion Applications from the perspective of the Resource Marketplace module it is easy to see where we can start. In the Preliminary Specification so far we have not discussed what is traditionally been called the Human Resource or Human Capital area of the firms needs. This of course would fall under the Resource Marketplace module as these people are part of the Resource Marketplace. Oracle has a number of products that fall under this category in their Oracle Fusion Applications and we will discuss them here. I noticed this quotation that shows we are consistent with Oracle’s approach to the marketplace in terms of how their Oracle Fusion Applications are to be used.

Oracle Fusion Human Capital Management is part of Oracle Fusion Applications, which are completely open, standards-based enterprise applications that can be easily integrated into a service oriented architecture. Designed as a complete suite of modular applications, Oracle Fusion Applications help you improve performance, lower IT costs, and get better results. Whether you choose one module, a product family, or the entire suite, Oracle enables you to gain the benefits of Oracle Fusion Applications at a pace that matches your business needs.

I read this as consistent with our intent to use Oracle Fusion Applications in the following manner. That they are open to customization through the Oracle Fusion Middleware layer. They are standards based and can be used as a service oriented architecture which is another term for “cloud” computing. Lastly we are an Oracle customer that “fills the gap” between the oil and gas industry and the technologies that Oracle provides.

The first document that I want to look at is a brochure that was published by Oracle entitled “Oracle Fusion Human Capital Management: The New Standard for Human Capital Management.” Within it Oracle lists the fifteen applications that fall under the Human Capital Management Suite.

The first and summarizing paragraph of the brochure shows that we are in the same ball park and playing the same sport as Oracle with respect to the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM). Although our concept has been developed further to include multiple organizations in the Joint Operating Committee and the service industry, they have developed the concept within the standalone organization to a significant level.

Oracle Fusion Human Capital Management (HCM) is a revolutionary step in human resources. The core design principle of Oracle Fusion HCM empowers every role in the organization, connecting all segments of a global workforce. It allows organizations to inform, engage, and collaborate with their workforce in ways never before possible. Organizations will benefit from the ability to personalize the application at organizational, business unit, management, and individual levels. These capabilities are fully configurable; are supported out of the box; and ensure data consistency, security, and compliance globally

Reading their documentation I see this emphasis on role throughout, which is a necessary part of the MCCM, and being a critical part of their application suites. Having that functionality already there will be a strong first step in making the MCCM real.

One area that we had not touched on yet was payroll, after all everyone likes to get paid. And of course the Oracle HCM Suite provides for these services. What will need to be done is to ensure that the earth science and engineering, as well as any other human resources that are being charged to the joint account, are able to be charged and recovered through the payroll system. I would think that this is something that Oracle would have thought would be basic functionality however I have not stumbled upon it yet. Recall that it is necessary, as a part of a producer's value proposition, that they seek revenues from oil and gas sales, and, from the secondment of their technical resources to the Joint Operating Committees, research and industry at large. The demands for earth scientists and engineers being so great, the costs to develop a team will be too onerous without the ability to generate revenues from them. Therefore a payroll or Partnership Accounting module facing system that bills these resources to the joint account and elsewhere at various rates will be necessary for the innovative oil and gas producer.

I’m intrigued by a grouping of modules within the Oracle Human Capital Management Suite (Oracle HCM Suite) that are somewhat new and provide the innovative oil and gas user with some unique value. Oracle calls this group of modules Oracle Fusion Talent Management which includes the following modules from the Oracle HCM Suite. Compensation Management, Incentive Compensation, Performance Management, Goal Management, Workforce Directory Management, Network at Work and Talent Review. I think that it is worthwhile to place the entire Oracle HCM Suite within the Preliminary Specification. That way producers, Joint Operating Committees and service industry participants will be able to use the modules that they find meets their needs in the most appropriate manner. Recall that People, Ideas & Objects will be providing the software in a “cloud computing” environment which is consistent with the architecture that Oracle has developed their Fusion Applications under.

The purpose in having a Talent Management grouping of applications should be obvious. In oil and gas we have a particular issue with the earth science and engineering resources that are the critical resource of the industry. The expected retirements over the next 20 years, the ability to train new recruits within that time, the increasing requirement of geology and engineering in each barrel of oil, and the expected demand for energy all make these people part of the key competitive advantages of an innovative oil and gas producer. Having software that focused on developing and maintaining these resources would be of great assistance, so lets have a quick look at what Oracle has prepared in terms of Oracle Fusion Talent Management.

First of all it is an assumption that the majority of these resources will be directly employed by the producers themselves. They will be seconded to the individual Joint Operating Committees by the producers that employ them, much as they do today. The employment contract will in all likelihood be comprehensive and include incentive and bonus compensation based on performance. With that said Oracle has three specific compensation related modules in their Talent Management group, Compensation Management, Incentive Compensation and Performance Management. These applications allow the producer to look at the compensation from the global and strategic perspective and from the competitive landscape. Particularly within the geographic region in which they are competing. In areas such as Performance Management the employee has tools in which to guide them through what is expected of them to keep them on course and attaining their goals.

Speaking of goals there is Oracle Goal Management for the producer to establish goals for the organization and individuals within that organization. In a top down manner the goals of the organization can be pushed down to the individual units and groups, and finally to the individuals to achieve within the appropriate time frame. There is also a capability in which employees are able to document their career development.

Oracle Network at Work is a tool that establishes a social network within the confines of the organization. I would think this might be of value if we had it for the entire oil & gas and service industries. Then the whole industry could collaborate and share the information they would share within a social network. The feature that this would have is that it would be dedicated to oil and gas as opposed to facebook which is unfocused.

How about a software tool to evaluate and prepare for the employee review process. In addition this is in a collaborative environment so that the input of the people who are responsible for the individuals performance have input into that process. The Oracle Fusion Talent Review does this and helps you develop the right talent for the right jobs.

The Oracle Fusion Workforce Directory Management provides a graphical representation of the organization chart. This is something that we need for the Military Command & Control Metaphor. The need to extend this beyond the individual organization to include members of the Joint Operating Committees participating producers and service industry representatives would be necessary. The tool provides basic information, including the role the individual holds, their supervisor etc. Exactly what we need in order to begin to impose a chain of command within the temporary organization that is established for operational excellence in the Joint Operating Committee.

Oracle has published a paper entitled “HR in the Cloud: Bringing Clarity to SaaS Myths and Manifestos” that I want to review. It deals with the issues around hosting the Oracle Human Capital Management Suite of applications in a “cloud computing” environment. Since all of Oracle applications are deployable to the cloud, and People, Ideas & Objects will be hosting the Preliminary Specification in that environment, review of this paper will bring some insight into the needs of our software. It's important to note that Oracle is the world's second largest SaaS (Software as a Service) provider, with 5.5 million users worldwide.

It is proposed in the Hardware Policies & Procedures for People Ideas & Objects that the application derived from the Preliminary Specification will be run on a “Private Cloud.” The ownership and management of this organization is subject to the industries input for the purposes of their compliance to SEC and other regulations. Having the application served as a SaaS, as single-tenant, and on a Private Cloud denotes most of the architecture that the application will have to consider.

In a survey Oracle identified that the two most common business processes run on private clouds are Financial / Accounting @ 20%, and Human Resources / Benefits @ 19%. I think the Financial / Accounting category was largely underreported in the survey as there was also Home Grown Applications @ 16%, Inventory / Shipping @ 10%, and Procurement / Purchasing @ 11%. All three of these are probably or traditionally accounting related applications. Making for a total of 76% of the total of all cloud based applications. Clearly the cloud is being used for the purposes that People, Ideas & Objects is planning to use them for.

It is too early to evaluate the proposed People, Ideas & Objects solution on the basis of Total Cost of Ownership from the perspective of a producer. There are not enough facts available to make any decisions or valuable information that would hold up under scrutiny. The oil and gas producer is in a capital intensive business where the costs of ERP systems are not material to the bottom line of the enterprise. The value proposition that is offered in our Revenue Model provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

We have looked at the Oracle identity management and security offerings and included them within the Security & Access Control module of the Preliminary Specification. From a SaaS perspective these tools also provide further value in that privacy laws in the EU and other areas outside of the U.S. are covered by Oracle’s database, identity management and security solutions.

We continue with our discussion of the Oracle paper “HR in the Cloud: Bringing Clarity to SaaS Myths and Manifestos.” Needless to say they’re large technical issues and there will be those that won’t be satisfied with the solutions no matter what the outcome of the Preliminary Specification. It is important to note that many of these features are available only as a result of providing People, Ideas & Objects as a “single-tenant” solution. This is the superior methodology and is the manner in which we are able to provide much of the customization of the Oracle technologies.

Integration of software is where many of the problems show up. We need to maintain a focus on the user to ensure that we are meeting their needs. And to continue to develop the Community of Independent Service Providers that are there to service and support the People, Ideas & Objects software for the producers. Oracle suggests that developing on open standards like Java and Oracle Fusion Middleware allows for further upgrade of the technology even if there are customizations. This little bit of magic will be discussed further as we proceed through the Preliminary Specification. It is however as a result of everything that is contained within the Oracle Fusion Applications are derived from the Oracle Fusion Middleware layer.

Customizations of applications are a fact of life. Not everyone can fit within the standard configuration of what an application should be. The reliance on users helps to keep the focus of where the needs are, and customizations through a dedicated software development capability like that proposed by People, Ideas & Objects are necessary. In addition each producer is unique. The need to have each producer run their own version of the Oracle stack of technologies and the People, Ideas & Objects software in their own virtualized instance on the cloud computer is necessary. This is what is called “single-tenant.” Then each producer is running their own version of the software and their domain is somewhat under their control.

Through the use of Oracle Fusion Middleware these customizations, if done appropriately, will survive the upgrade process. Therefore the ability to have the regular software upgrades of the underlying Oracle technologies will not disrupt the People, Ideas & Objects modules or customizations. Speaking of upgrades the need to manage the upgrade process for cloud computing applications takes on a new priority. Making sure that the appropriate change management procedures and policies are in place, the appropriate testing, that training of the user base and a host of other related issues need to be considered before the technologies are upgraded. It will be easier to upgrade the technologies once, however it must be done with much forethought and consideration of the producers and users needs and understanding of the use of the application modules.

When it comes to performance and reliability the cloud computing architecture is a simple matter of applying the proven rules of specialization and the division of labor. It is far more efficient and effective to have the technologies for hundreds of producers handled by the specialized skills of Database Administrators, Network Specialists and the like then having each of those producers provide support for their technical architecture with one general support person.

One of the key outputs of the Preliminary Specification is the initial geographical scope of the People, Ideas & Objects application modules. This will involve which jurisdictions it will calculate royalties for, which jurisdictions it will meet for securities purposes, and what currencies it will recognize etc. In essence determining the minimum level of functionality to meet the users requirements in the first commercial iteration of the application. Oracle Fusion Applications are global in their scope. Providing the producer with a strong base of functionality in which to determine what is the initial scope of the Preliminary Specification.

Within the Resource Marketplace module of the Preliminary Specification there is a need to provide the service industry participants with software solutions that interact with the producers and Joint Operating Committees. In the area of Human Capital Management, a part of the Resource Marketplace module which the Military Command & Control Metaphor will fall under. Where members of the service industry firms participate in field operations conducted by the Joint Operating Committees. They need to have the ability to participate and fall-in within the chain of command that is established within the temporary organization that is established for the operation being conducted. Therefore the need to access some of the modules of the Oracle Fusion HCM Suite, as well as others, will be part of the Preliminary Specifications offering as well.

And there will be other aspects of the service industry representatives business that will need to be included in the Preliminary Specification. Looking at Oracle’s Fusion Financials and Oracle Accounting Hub there are services that are provided for just this purpose. Recall that we have some unique aspects of the Resource Marketplace module that involve the service industry. And one of those is the ability to design transactions. Therefore the need to have these software services operational in the cloud and accessible by the service industry representatives is critical.

It is not to suggest that we are providing the full accounting services that we are providing to the producer firm and Joint Operating Committees. We are not that familiar with the service industry to provide that level of service. However, Oracle Fusion Accounting Hub provides the means in which they can interface their accounting systems with the People, Ideas & Objects systems. That way they can utilize the services we provide and fully integrate their systems to service and support the innovative oil and gas producer and Joint Operating Committee in its needs.

Modules of the Oracle Fusion Financials include General Ledger, Accounts Payable, Accounts Receivable, Payments & Collections, Cash & Expense Management and Asset Management. These are your generic financial applications and will of course be included in the Preliminary Specification. Where they reside within the specification is not material to the discussion as they will be separate modules much like the eleven modules in the Preliminary Specification. By using modular theory we gain the full use of these Oracle Fusion applications without the complexity of integrating them within any specific module itself.

The days in which we could generate excitement over charts of accounts and journal entries is probably behind us. The ability to deal with the unique needs of the Preliminary Specification is something that I am confident that Oracle Fusion Financials can handle. Based on the Oracle Database, which is by far the leading technical database and market leader. And the result of what Oracle claim to have now invested in Fusion technologies since 2005 of over $20 billion. And based on Java, the leading programming language, and as of this date no other major ERP vendors system is based upon. In terms of technological architecture this will provide a foundation for the innovative oil and gas producer through the next several generations or iterations of the inevitable IT churn.

The user base for People, Ideas & Objects needs to be as broad as is possible. What is clear in this discussion is the role that the service industry providers have in making this application so much more valuable through their interaction. So whether it is a producer, service industry representative or participant in a Joint Operating Committee, a geologist, engineer or accountant, everyone and everybody needs to be included in making the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification theirs.

One module that the oil and gas producer and the Joint Operating Committee won’t have much use for is the Oracle Fusion Customer Relationship Management Suite or CRM. That doesn’t mean that we won’t host the applications as the benefits of doing so would be the better service the service industry could provide the producers and JOC’s by having access to those application modules. Customers are a bit of a foreign concept in oil and gas, not so in the service industry, and the ability to have access to the Oracle Fusion Customer Relationship Management Suite would provide real value for both the service and the oil and gas industry.

Included in the suite are the following modules. Customer Master, Sales, Marketing, Incentive Compensation, Mobile & Outlook Integration and Territory and Quota Management. These applications help to manage the customer, that being the oil and gas producer and Joint Operating Committee, with their needs for the service industries products and services. Applications such as Oracle Fusion Product Catalog allow service industry marketing personnel to start the process of selling and promoting their products on the web. From there they are able to capture the sales leads and track down sales calls to make the sale with the information that is captured by their team within the Oracle Fusion CRM Suite.

Providing these products in the Preliminary Specification is a must have and therefore I have included them in the Resource Marketplace module. The service industry needs are a critical component of the success of the innovative oil and gas producers. Although we are not as confident in terms of understanding their business. And their businesses are far more diverse in terms of the industry definitions that define them. We need to provide the best software services that we can to the services industry. This from a reasonableness and competitiveness point of view, but also to mitigate the conflict that has arisen between the producers and service industry representative in terms of costs and performance.

Customer Relationship Management applications have become one of the killer apps of the last decade in terms of their impact on business. Bringing a level of intelligence to the marketing of products and services to the firms that are able to exploit the technologies.

In all of the modules of the Preliminary Specification we have defined high levels of collaboration. Whether it is here in the Resource Marketplace modules Actionable Information Interface, Supplier Collaborative Interface or the Gap Filling Interface. Collaboration within the producer, Joint Operating Committee, oil and gas industry and service industry is robust. Now some of those collaborations, like those in the Supplier Collaborative Interface are for public consumption. And others are for a limited viewing audience. How can users be assured that their collaborations are held in the confidence they are intended to be? And what form will these collaborations take, and what systems are used in order to conduct these interactions? These are all valid questions that will be answered by this discussion.

Today’s collaborations take on much more than just textual interactions. There is video, chat, social media and images. Within the Preliminary Specification I would like to see the ability to capture a video meeting of the Joint Operating Committee and record the participants and their votes for further reference. This way members could be situated where ever they may be at the time of the meeting and still participate through their computer or an iPad. Being presented with a menu of items in which the voting on different decisions that are being made. Their votes being logged and the outcome of the votes setting in motion the activity that was decided upon.

Oracle through their Fusion Applications provides these level of collaborative services as part of the ERP software offerings. It will not be necessary for the members of the Joint Operating Committee to go outside of the People, Ideas & Objects application modules to gain this level of collaboration. It will be available as a result of the application itself. The following quotations come from a white paper entitled “Oracle Fusion Application Overview”

Web 2.0 Collaboration: Today’s workforce relies on online collaboration to get their work done. Whether they use chat, discussion forums or web conferencing to communicate and come to decisions, Web 2.0 collaboration technologies have previously been disconnected from enterprise applications. Integrating Web 2.0 Collaboration directly within the application has several benefits:

• Productivity: Instead of searching for the relevant employee in a separate online directory, initiating a session through a separate Web 2.0 application, a Web 2.0-aware enterprise application can provide a direct link to the other participants in the decision, and single-click access to online communications with them.

• Context: A Web 2.0-aware application can integrate the business context with the discussion, and capture the decision details for future reference.

• Security: The channels that the application offers directly are sanctioned and secure, in contrast to the third-party programs that employees commonly use for non-professional communications.

It is within this area of collaborations that innovations will begin. In our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi we learned that technical trajectories were influenced by commodities that were abundant and affordable. It is People, Ideas & Objects assertion that the two commodities that affect the technical trajectories in oil and gas are knowledge and collaborations. Having an ERP system that provides high levels of collaboration will enhance the innovativeness of the oil and gas producer. And let's not forget the ultimate collaborative interface, our “Marketplace Interface”.

In previous passes through the Preliminary Specification we have discussed the Purchase Order system that is part of the various modules. In the Resource Marketplace module, access to the service industry is one of the key attributes of the module and therefore the Purchase Order system will be an inherent part of that module. Thankfully Oracle have a suite of modules called Procurement in the Oracle Fusion Applications. Within that suite includes the following modules Purchasing, Self-Service Procurement, Sourcing, Procurement Contracts, Supplier Portal and Spend & Performance Analysis. All of these modules within the Procurement suite will be adopted within the Preliminary Specification as they bring substantial value to the innovative oil and gas producer.

There is also a suite of Supply Chain Management modules that I have not placed within the Preliminary Specification. Oil and gas doesn’t need supply chain management tools it needs good old fashioned purchasing tools. Supply chain tools are for retail stores like WalMart and manufacturers like Ford, not oil and gas operations like upstream innovative oil and gas producers. There may be some demand for supply chain tools if the producers of the oil sands plants decide to join the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification, and there is no reason that they couldn’t. They would however need to indicate so before the scope of the Preliminary Specification was set, so that it included heavy oil operations.

There will be a variety of People, Ideas & Objects modules that access Oracle Fusion Application Procurement modules during their operation. Within the Preliminary Specification we have employed modularity theory in both the technology and the organizational design. From a technological point of view modularity provides us with the ability to access the services of a module without having to delve too deeply into the code of the module we want to access. In a paper entitled “Oracle Fusion Applications: The New Standard for Business” Oracle describes the benefits of modularity in the following fashion.

The maximum benefits of SOA can only be gained by placing services at the heart of an application that takes a modular approach to module and process design. That way, processes can be reconfigured to meet the evolving requirements of the business at a detailed level. Any extensions can be developed as additional services, without touching the source code of the core application.

So when the Resource Marketplace module wants the “Marketplace Interface” to generate a Purchase Order with a new supplier then the service is populated within the interface from the Purchasing module in the Oracle Fusion Application Procurement Suite. These are some of the benefits that we gain from modularity in terms of the technologies. What the primary benefit of modularity is in organizations is the further division of labor and specialization.

Purchasing activities may be limited to those producers that are undertaking large and complex projects. However, I think that any and all producers can benefit from having these services available to them. Even though a project may not be big in terms of some of the other projects that are undertaken in the industry, they are material to the producer firm or Joint Operating Committee conducting them. And as such would benefit by having a Purchase Order system and related facilities provided to help manage the contract, transaction and relationship with the service industry provider.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

The Marketplace Interface

We take a step back for a moment to pick up a point or two in the Resource Marketplace module. It has to do with the “Marketplace Interface” within that module. The point is to highlight the fact that within the Resource, Petroleum Lease and Financial Marketplace modules there is only one “Marketplace Interface.” That is to say that while in the virtual world you would be able to engage with companies for Resource, Petroleum Lease and Financial Marketplace purposes. There would be no reason to have three separate environments. (Please review the information contained in the Financial and Petroleum Lease Marketplace under “Marketplace Interface” for further information.)

By way of a scenario, you hear from a partner that a vendor is conducting a presentation of a new technology in the “Marketplace Interface.” You log in to see what the technology looks like and find their presentation overwhelmed with interest. Nonetheless you are able to view and hear everything clearly and see the value of the technology. While there you run into a number of partners that are interested in testing the technology at one of their facilities that you also have an interest in. They present you with an AFE for the costs associated with running the tool and ask that you approve it as quick as you can.

You have a minor interest in the property and the partners are at the threshold of having the 75% approval necessary to proceed with the project without your approval. Nonetheless you would like to be a constructive contributor to the project and are proceeding with the expectation that you will gain approval. The costs associated with the work over are small, yet the downtime affects the production and revenue projections. Those are the bigger issues, as reliability and predictability have been an issue at this property. Something that this tool is designed to mitigate.

Funds are sourced from the firms Research & Development area as the firm feels the tool will show some promise in other properties. The AFE’s are signed and you are seconded to the Joint Operating Committee to work as an engineer on this project. What is not realized through this scenario is that you completed all of this work through the “Marketplace Interface” through your iPad during breakfast at home. The ERP system was able to establish the AFE through the partners, the communications internally to approve the AFE, source the budget, assign the roles and responsibilities to the project and to participate in the vendors presentation were all done at the breakfast table. In this scenario the paper work was almost faster than the ideas!



The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

An Industry in Transition

One of the conclusions in the Preliminary Research Report was that the oil and gas industry was transitioning from a “banking” mentality of earning guaranteed returns on investments, one that was based on the cheap energy era where financial survival was the key to success. To a scientifically based industry where innovating on the earth science and engineering disciplines would become the determining factors in a producer's survival and success. Today those two cultures are clashing as the relics of the cheap energy era attempt to restructure to compete in the scientific frontier. Adding to this transition is the bureaucracies last ditch attempt to assert its purpose in life.

We have been discussing the capabilities of the producer, the Joint Operating Committee and the service industry and how the Resource Marketplace module of the Preliminary Specification works to coordinate these. We have put the responsibility for the service industries market supporting institutions squarely on the producers. The reasons for that are for the obvious ones in that they are the primary benefactors, and they are the primary industry that collects the revenues that ultimately will be used to support the service industry. It is therefore necessary that the oil and gas producers use this money to encourage this market to grow and develop as thick and as responsive as possible. The oil and gas producers are the ones who will benefit from the innovative and competitive service industry. What is known about the future of the oil and gas producer is that there are high levels of uncertainty. Developing thick markets in the service industry will mitigate some of this uncertainty. From Professor Richard Langlois paper “Economic Institutions and the Boundaries of the Firm: The Case of Business Groups.”

The second hypothesis, which has resonances at least as far back as Gerschenkron’s famous “backwardness” thesis (Gerschenkron 1962), is that the way an economy responds to the problems of coordinating economic development depends not only on its own institutions and capabilities but also on institutions and capabilities elsewhere. It depends not only on an economy’s own history but on the history of other economies as well. The force of this observation is that an economy at the frontier of economic development (however we care to define that) is likely to respond to the coordination problem differently than an economy lagging behind that frontier. Specifically, an economy at the frontier is arguably more likely to rely on decentralized modes of coordination. This is so because uncertainty is greater at the frontier — uncertainty about technology, organizational form, market direction. p. 18

And what we need are people thinking their way through the uncertainty. I have been a strong critic of the “best practices” phenomenon that has developed over the past few years. Copying others “best practices” reminds me of this quote from Professor Langlois paper.

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.” (Ericson, 1991, p. 21).

Best practices reflect the staleness of the methods of the bureaucracy. If not for the increase in commodity prices over the past few years, you wonder what they would have relied upon for earnings.

One area that we have not discussed in terms of capabilities in the Resource Marketplace module of the Preliminary Specification. Is where the authority and responsibility for any field operations falls as a result of the revised boundaries of the firm and market. If we have dynamic markets providing innovative products and services to the producers and Joint Operating Committees how does this affect the authority and responsibilities that are established in the business today.

The clearest example to provide direction to this issue is the BP Gulf of Mexico well blowout. The findings established that BP was 100% responsible for the cause of the well blowout, and that clearly is the way that the business is run. The earth science and engineering resources are within the producer firms, and Joint Operating Committees, to design and engineer the operations to meet the safe and profitable operations of the oil and gas facilities. Without an appropriate engineering design there is little that a vendor can do in the field with a program that is destined to fail. With the changes being made in the Preliminary Specification, where reliance on an innovative Resource Marketplace for the service industry products and services, nothing will change in terms of this responsibility. The engineering staff at the oil and gas producer or Joint Operating Committee will have more choice in terms of products and services in terms of what they can do in the field. A second point on this discussion, is also the changes within the producer firm in terms of the reduction in the bureaucracy. From Professor Richard Langlois book “The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism.”

History is never kind to historicists, of course; and the facts of the last quarter century have made life uncomfortable for those who would project the Schumpeter-Chandler model into the present. It has become exceedingly clear that the late twentieth (and now early twenty-first) centuries are witnessing a revolution at least as important as, but quite different from, the one Berle and Means decried and Schumpeter and Chandler extolled. Strikingly, the animating principle of this new revolution is precisely an unmaking of the corporate revolution. Rather than seeing the continued dominance of multi-unit firms in which managerial control spans a large number of vertical stages, we are seeing a dramatic increase in vertical specialization — a thoroughgoing “de-verticalization” that is affecting traditional industries as much as the high-tech firms of the late twentieth century. In this respect, the visible hand, understood as managerial coordination of multiple stages of production within a corporate framework, is fading into a ghostly translucence. p. 7

Management having less influence in the day to day of an oil and gas producer does not affect the authority or responsibility either. The engineers are qualified and regulated in terms of their qualifications and certifications. If they are signing their programs then they have their career on the line which to me is worth substantially more than the controls a manager may have established.

In highly developed economies, moreover, a wide variety of capabilities are 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. p. 14

Substantial change, creative destruction and innovation throughout the service and oil and gas industries. That is what is required to resolve the problems of the day. It's important to remember that doing so is as Professor Langlois states “Economic growth is about the evolution of a complex structure (Langlois 2001).” p. 6

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Market Supporting Institutions

It is clear the oil and gas industry will need comprehensive systems from People, Ideas & Objects to achieve the objectives that we have set out for the innovative producer. These will require the support necessary to ensure that the supplier / vendor gains as much from the systems as the producers. These comprehensive systems are the types of market supporting institutions that need to be developed in order for the innovative oil and gas industry to move forward. The Community of Independent Service Providers were built off of concepts that were developed by Professor Richard Langlois which he called Industrial Districts, and another of our top researchers, Professor Carlota Perez’ concept of Small Knowledge Intensive Enterprises. We will be discussing these concepts further in the Resource Marketplace module. I will introduce the concept as they describe them. From Professor Langlois’ paper “Innovation Process and Industrial Districts.”

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

When it comes to field operations, you have to recall that the vendors / suppliers have been the focus of the cost overruns. This has been as a result, according to the producers, to the suppliers / vendors greed and laziness. What that does in the marketplace is exactly the opposite of what is optimal in terms of a highly efficient field operations marketplace. But then I probably don’t have to explain that to the majority of the producers these days. Professor Langlois notes that we need to strive to achieve what he calls embeddedness in an Industrial District, supported by the People, Ideas & Objects Community of Independent Service Providers.

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. These outcomes can then be relatively easily diffused among firms in the Industrial Districts (ID) because of embeddedness in a common environment. The obverse of this commonality of inspiration and ease of transmission of knowledge, however, may be an inordinately inward focus that results in an ignorance of or disdain for innovation processes in other regions or in industries not represented in the ID. Furthermore, there may be a relationship between the degree of embeddedness in the industrial district and innovation. It has been suggested that innovation increases as embeddedness increase up to a point, and that beyond that point further embeddedness results in reduced innovation performance at the firm level (Uzzi, 1997; Boschma, 2005). Thus, depending on circumstances, participation in an industrial district can either encourage or impeded innovation. pp. 1- 2

We have been discussing Industrial Districts as an ideal way to configure the Resource Marketplace of the suppliers and vendors. An innovative oil and gas industry has to depend on an innovative and high performing service industry. And that can only happen with the deliberate and careful building of the necessary industry supporting infrastructure from the oil and gas producers. So much of the toxic environment that exists today between the two industries is as a result of the oil and gas producers blaming the cost overruns on the vendors in the field operations. This environment is fully 180 degrees from where the oil and gas producer needs to have these relationships, and it is the responsibility of the producer to get the relationships back in line. It will be through the development of the Resource Marketplace module in the Preliminary Specification that the service industry will be able to see the legitimacy of the producers intent to build the industry supporting infrastructure necessary for innovation to develop.

As much as we have discussed the role that Adam Smith’s theories of specialization and division of labor will have at the producer level, they will have similar impact in the field. To help these companies to better understand these principles would be the Community of Independent Service Providers who could consult to these firms and help them develop their organizations. From Professor Richard Langlois’ paper “Innovation Process and Industrial Districts.”

Because of their structure, industrial districts offer important benefits in innovation processes. For one thing, the high levels of differentiation and specialization allow firms, in the Smithian fashion, to focus on aspects of the supply chain in which they are especially competent. p. 5

To me its intuitive what Professor Langlois is talking about. In a hostile working environment its work to rule. No one volunteers anything, and everyone just does their job so they don't get fired. The fact that the well didn’t find any commercial gas isn't anyone's specific problem. On the other hand, when everyone is pulling together as a team...

Strong ties (Granovetter, 1973) among workers, including managers, can increase the amount of information available to firms and the readiness of people to share what they know when relationships gain a dimension of friendship to counterbalance the competitiveness among firms. p. 5

Thankfully the community spirit in the field remains. The accusations by the producers that the service industries cost overruns are a result of their greed and laziness has only divided the field from the head office people in an us vs. them type of scenario. The finger pointing by the producers has been the extent of the impact on the fields community, with no long term serious consequences.

When embeddedness is strong, the creation of communities of practice (Wenger, 1998; Brown and Duguid, 2000) generates competences that, although possessed by individuals, are collective in that they are based on a set of practices that is common to all members of a community. These competences (both tacit and codified) can transcend firm boundaries and become characteristics of an entire industrial district. As Marshall (1975, 197) wrote of nineteenth century Britain, “To use a mode of speaking which workmen themselves use, the skill required for their work ‘is in the air, and children breathe it as they grow up.’” p. 6

To clarify, it will be the producer who will need to rectify this situation. They will need to build the industry supporting institutions that will enable the types of environments that will foster the needed innovation and competition in the service industry. What an innovative oil and gas industry must have is a highly innovative and competitive service industry. This begins with the interfaces and systems that we are describing here in the Resource Marketplace of the Preliminary Specification.

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

I want to revisit the “Gap Filling Interface” of the Resource Marketplace and add some of the elements of our recent discussion of the service industry. It would be fair to state that the service, and the oil and gas industries have remained somewhat static in their makeup of how they are organized. Specialization and the division of labor seem to have stopped around the last SAP integration.

Management of the oil and gas bureaucracies have reigned over the service sector with the grace of a Roman Emperor. Putting thumbs up or down on an innovation on the basis that they have immediate need for it or not, and expecting solutions to spontaneously exist when problems do arise. This entire process of development has devolved to the point where little is being done and ranks on par with the oil and gas companies suggesting to the service industry to "let them eat cake." No money is provided to research new products, only tried and tested products and services are accepted, and only “large” firms are used. And producers actually complain about cost overruns.

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. p. 6

In the Resource Marketplace module of the Preliminary Specification we have developed the “Gap Filling Interface.” A collaborative tool that users can input where they see a gap that needs filling within their firm, their Joint Operating Committee, a service provider or anywhere within the oil and gas and service industries. It is the expression of a well articulated need. Providers can then review the interface to determine if there is a service or product demanded that is similar to theirs that they can configure and provide to the producer firm, Joint Operating Committee or service provider. The problem that we have today is that the problem may be in Shanghai and the solution to it is sitting in Midland, Texas. With such large distances between problems and solutions we need to ensure that we have the means to focus the expression of the need in an appropriate forum where the problem and solution can find each other. That is the “Gap Filling Interface.”

The situation is similar when we look at it from the other perspective. Those that may have developed a solution to a gap that want to market it to the broader market can post it to the “Gap Filling Interface” for those to see. Again with the problems and their solutions being separated by geography it is necessary to build a specific forum to capture the attention of people for this purpose.

Ideally, with the oil and gas producers providing the kinds of industry supporting institutions that we have been discussing. The service industry will have developed thick markets where the ability, and capability, to fill these “gaps” both in the service sector and the producer firms themselves will be immediate. That is to say, should be the objective in terms of the capabilities we should expect from the markets that we are seeking to develop.

The underlying assumption, normally unspoken, is that relevant background institutions — things like respect for private property, contract law, courts — are all in place. Whatever transaction costs then arise are thus the result of properties inherent in “the market” itself, not of inadequacies in background institutions. There is generally a tacit factual or historical assumption as well: that the relevant markets exist thickly or would come into existence instantaneously if called upon. p. 3

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.

Dynamic Transaction Costs

Our overall topic is capabilities, and we are moving from our discussion of modularity to the topic of dynamic transaction costs. Dynamic Transaction Costs are somewhat of a unique area of research for Professor Richard Langlois. That is to say I think he is the leading researcher on the topic. It is a topic that affects us significantly as we operate in an environment where change is the one constant that we can rely on. Langlois’ definition of Dynamic Transaction Costs from “Transaction Cost Economics In Real Time” is as follows.

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

Clearly the oil and gas industry will have significant Dynamic Transaction Costs without People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. That is to say that they will not have the capabilities they need when they need them if they continue to use SAP in the structured hierarchy. Nonetheless, even with the use of People, Ideas & Objects there would be Dynamic Transaction Costs incurred as a result of the movement to full reliance on the market for its resources. Recall we are looking for “thicker” markets to develop as the Joint Operating Committees look to the market for all of its Resource Marketplace. Let's recall what capabilities are with a quote from Langlois’ paper, and the phrase from Harvard Professor Carliss Baldwin of “Knowledge begets capabilities, and capabilities beget action.”

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.

We have noted that when a supplier / vendor was selected within the “Planning & Deployment Interface” of either the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning module. Then the associated key and operational staff c/w their positions in the Military Command & Control Metaphor would be populated into the interface from the Vendor / Supplier Contact Database. With this information that we have learned about Dynamic Transaction Costs. We could also populate the “Planning & Deployment Interface” with the capabilities information from the supplier / vendor when it is selected. This information would also become available when it was required from the Vendor / Supplier Contact Database and be maintained by the vendor, as all the information in that database is.

"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

There will be a significant amount of information that is made available to the users of the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” Certainly the information to determine what is required to mitigate the Dynamic Transaction Costs, define any deficiencies and to map out a successful project.

We want to look at the situation from the point of view of the supplier / vendor in terms of how they are providing capabilities to the Joint Operating Committee that employs them. We discussed how much of the data regarding their service operation is populated into the Joint Operating Committees “Planning & Deployment Interface.”

From the supplier / vendor’s point of view being part of the detailed planning of the program will not be anything too new. What we are seeking to achieve is for the oil and gas producers as represented in the Joint Operating Committees having a greater reliance on “thicker” markets in the service industry. A greater dependence on an innovative and competitive service industry marketplace is a necessary building block as a base for the innovative oil and gas industry. This is reflected in the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specifications “Ideas Marketplace Blog,” and the decentralized manner in which the industry will operate under the Preliminary Specification. Some may suggest the industry operates in that fashion, I have argued here that we are far from that conceptual model. That is evidenced by the level of conflict between the producers and suppliers and the lack of competition in the supplier marketplace. I see the producer firms as the primary reason for this situation. They have consistently obstructed the service industry market from operating effectively at critical times. This is reflected in purchasing equipment for their own purpose, like drilling rigs, not working with anything but proven technology, not sponsoring any research, not working with anyone other than of size, not respecting others Intellectual Property, etc.

Listed as a project on Professor Richard Langlois website is “The Vanishing Hand” which he describes in his paper “The Vanishing Hand: the Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism” as.

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

Suggesting that we are moving towards a market based form of industrial capitalism. One that leaves behind the “visible hand” of the hierarchy and its management. We noted that there were interfaces for the service industry to the Resource Marketplace module of the Preliminary Specification. Specifically a project management interface that enabled the provider to determine and pass their Dynamic Transaction Costs on to the Joint Operating Committee. It is necessary that the producers provide the service providers with access to the software in this fashion, and to offset these costs to enable the markets to expand.

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

The oil and gas industry has to consider itself a market-supporting institution to the service industry. These service providers are not primary industries, they are dependent for their revenues from the oil and gas producers. It would serve the oil and gas industry well to remember that they are dependent on the service industry. There has been so much talk about how greedy and lazy the service industry is from the producers themselves that I can't imagine how more toxic it could get. The attitudes and actions of an innovative and successful oil and gas producer are so far removed from this behavior, we have far to travel.

How would learning proceed in a system of decentralized capabilities? As I have already suggested, progress would take place autonomously within the decentralized stages. There would be no need for integration unless a systemic innovation offering superior performance arrives on the scene. Indeed, as we have seen, fixed task boundaries and standardized connections between stages might make innovation difficult with the existing structure, requiring a kind of creative destruction. (Schumpeter, 1950). p. 121

I want to stay in the domain of the supplier / vendor and discuss how their greater participation and role in the Joint Operating Committees capabilities, increases the profitability of the oil and gas producers. How this organizational conceptual model will not only aid the producers but also the suppliers / vendors in the innovative oil and gas industry. From Professor Ronald Coase in the “Nature of the Firm” 1937

Adam Smith explained that the productivity of the economic system depends on specialization (he says the division of labor), but specialization is only possible if there is exchange-and the lower the costs of exchange (transaction costs if you will), the more specialization there will be and the greater the productivity of the system. p. 73

The competitive advantages of the oil and gas producers are their land and asset base, and their earth science and engineering capabilities. To a large extent everything else is secondary to the firm in terms of maintaining a competitive position within the industry. What is not core to their competitive advantage can be obtained through contract from the marketplace on the basis of the “decentralized production model.” Leaving the “high throughput production” model that is currently being used behind. From Professor Coase.

This is what I said in a lecture published in Lives of the Laureates (Coase, 1995 p. 245): The costs of coordination within a firm and the level of transaction costs that it faces are affected by its ability to purchase inputs from other firms, and their ability to supply these inputs depends in part on their costs of coordination and the level of transaction costs that they face which are similarly affected by what these are in still other firms. What we are dealing with is a complex interrelated structure." Add to this the influence of the laws, of the social system, and of the culture, as well as the effects of technological changes such as the digital revolution with its dramatic fall in information costs (a major component of transaction costs), and you have a complicated set of interrelationships the nature of which will take much dedicated work over a long period to discover. But when this is done, all of economics will have become what we now call "the new institutional economics. p. 73

If the oil and gas producer is to attain a higher output of oil and gas it will require them to focus on their part of the process in a more specialized manner. And that would apply to the overall industry as much as to any individual producer. Leaving the work that they may be involved in today to the marketplace to provide. In the Preliminary Specification this will have the prototypical producer firm configured with the officers, engineers, geologists, geophysicists and a handful of lawyers for contracts and land deals. Everyone else provided through a service contract with a service provider in the Resource Marketplace module. This producer firm will manage their interests in a variety of Joint Operating Committees and participate in the development of their properties. Each JOC having acquired capabilities from the supplier / vendors in the Resource Marketplace.

It is this reliance on the Resource Marketplace module at both the producer level and the Joint Operating Committee that I am emphasizing in this discussion. Specialization at all levels of the industry will enable the oil and gas and service industries to produce more oil and gas with the same resource base. This is the benefit of specialization and the division of labor. We however, first need to implement a new organizational model that incorporates all the elements of the industry. And that includes the service industry and service providers in the field and in the head offices of the producers. Without that we are only solving part of the problem. The point of this exercise is that with the increased output of oil and gas, and the more efficient production of that oil and gas as a result of the market configuration noted above. The oil and gas producer will be more profitable as a result of the software that identifies and supports this decentralized production model.

The Preliminary Specification provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in these user defined software developments. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy.