We discussed how the Joint Operating Committee was able to manage who was available to work for the property. The ability to pool the earth science and engineering resources from the partnership is something that is asserted as being a necessity in the future of the oil and gas industry. It should be stated here as well that the Military Command & Control Metaphor would not be limited to just the earth science and engineering disciplines, but would include everyone that is employed within the producer firms and service industry. So this would help us to deal with the who, now we need a mechanism to deal with what it is they will be doing.
The next part of the
Partnership Accounting module deals with the operational side of how the field work within the Joint Operating Committee gets completed. Partnerships have always had AFE’s and operations budgets to deal with how much will be spent on an annual basis at a facility etc. And those continue in their traditional ways in the People, Ideas & Objects application. This discussion deals with how the Military Command Control & Metaphor can deploy the resources and authorize the spending of budgets in a manner that provides for the governance of the Joint Operating Committee. Simply we are talking about the collaborative Work Order System that is part of the Partnership Accounting and other modules. (Compliance & Governance, Petroleum Lease Marketplace, Resource Marketplace modules).
Deployment of the people within the Joint Operating Committee, with the budgets that are agreed to are not enough to satisfy any interpretation of adequate governance. Proper authorization and responsibility needs to be assigned to ensure that plans and budgets are executed successfully. Without a Work Order system within the People, Ideas & Objects application the governance of the property would not be possible. The ways and means of successfully controlling costs and deploying the resources in a manner to complete the tasks at hand are what the Work Order system is designed to complete.
The manner in which the Work Order system will be deployed will be as follows. If someone asks you to work on a project, your first question should be is “what’s your Work Order number.” Then you immediately start charging your time to the code. It doesn’t matter if you're an employee of the producer where the request came from, a partner in a Joint Operating Committee or a vendor or supplier. If they don’t have a Work Order number you hang up the phone. If they have a number, you key the Work Order number into your device or keyboard and continue talking. The Work Order system will aggregate and bill your time while working on that project. The details, chain of command, tasks and deliverables are all delivered within the Work Order system that was provided when you keyed the Work Order number into your computer.
Note that one of the benefits of this system is that no work gets done without a Work Order. Assigning budgets from either an AFE or from internally sourced overhead accounts will be a matter of selecting from budget accounts or from pre-approved allocations. The ability to approve a Work Order would therefore be at an appropriate level within the chain of command of the Joint Operating Committee designated through the Military Command & Control Metaphor (involving multiple producers). If a Work Order were to exceed its budget it is reasonable to assume that it was exceeding its AFE or account budget(s if it involved multiple producers) as well, which could trigger action from the Compliance & Governance module of the People, Ideas & Objects application, if that is what management desired or deemed necessary and established in that module.
Let's be clear, what People, Ideas & Objects are proposing in the Preliminary Specifications Partnership Accounting module is nothing like any other joint venture accounting system. When we begin to account for the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct. Align all of the frameworks of the producer and the Joint Operating Committee together. And then unleash the innovativeness in both the producer and the Joint Operating Committee, the accounting and systems used by the producer becomes an enabling capability.
Some of the processes that we have described in the Preliminary Specification have been comprehensive and involve multiple organizations, over multiple accounting periods. Whether that’s the development of capabilities that begins in the Research & Capabilities module, touches on the Resource Marketplace and Financial Marketplace modules, and passes through to the Knowledge & Learning module. Some of these processes carry transactions that are as complex and as difficult to quantify as the process. Some will be for the joint account, some will be for the producer to incur on their own and as we learned in the Financial Marketplace module some transactions might be as a result of an investment being made by an investment group.
Discussing the Work Order system that will be able to control the costs associated with a project. The projects contained within a Work Order might be funded by an AFE or a budgeted account, and as a result will be able to control the costs of the project, monitor them and maintain a governance through the use of the Military Command & Control Metaphor of the People, Ideas & Objects system. The Work Order system will be able to designate the ability to charge out the costs to the appropriate owners of the projects at the initialization of the Work Order. Since the Work Order is a multi-organizational system, that is members of a Joint Operating Committee or members of the field services industries will be able to participate in a Work Order, which means they will then have the ability to pre-approve and participate in the project. The accountant working within the Partnership Accounting module won’t therefore be running around trying to seek approval from partners to approve the expenditures to projects that didn’t get approved properly. If everyone within the industry only works to a chargeable Work Order, and all Work Orders are pre approved by those who will be financially responsible for the charges, then the accountants job in chasing their tail is over.
The point of the Work Order system is hopefully not lost on others in the industry. Some may feel that the Work Order duplicates the attributes of the AFE, and I would argue that they are fundamentally different. The AFE approves spending for field level and construction projects of a capital nature. The Work Order system is a means to deploy the capabilities of the producer or JOC in an authorized manner. When we are able to extend the Work Order system across multiple producers, JOC’s and suppliers, the ability to deploy the capabilities of multiple organizations will facilitate the innovativeness that we are seeking in the oil and gas industry. The Work Order may take budget dollars from multiple AFE’s and assign them to a team of engineers that are asked to develop the process necessary to make their firm more capable. Or, departmental budget dollars from two producers may be contributed to a Work Order for their Geologists to attend a conference and conduct research on some promising development. The simple point being that no one does any work without a Work Order to charge their time to, and no Work Order can collect charges that hasn’t had their budget pre-approved.
This will make the Partnership Accounting module workable from the point of view of controlling the costs of the multitude of different arrangements being made within the organization. If the accountants are tasked with trying to put together the costs and determine who is to be charged after the fact, it's generally too late to fix in a cost effective manner. By imposing the Work Order system in this fashion, within the Partnership Accounting module, the arrangements are pre-made and the authorizations are required before the charges can be incurred. Making the accounting for the deployment of capabilities systematic as opposed to problematic.
We are discussing the role that the Work Order system would have in clearing up the administrative minutiae of the accounting related issues of the Partnership Accounting module in the Preliminary Specification. I want to continue on with that discussion and ask what that has to do with innovation? Lets look at the Work Order system from the perspective of a successful producer who is active in the marketplace and has developed an earth science and engineering capability that scores well in terms of Revenue Per Employee. The CEO is approached by one of the engineers who hears of several other producers who are conducting a study on something of interest to your firm. They are looking for other participants to join in and you want the engineer that brought the news to participate in the project. Assuming everyone of the producers was using the Work Order system they would be able to pool the resources they have within the Work Order that was setup to manage the project. You were able to commit to a 10% share of x costs and would offset those costs with your engineers time and use of office space and some computer resources. (Note all costs are pre-approved and budgeted from other accounts.) With the Work Order you were able to make these commitments subject to the other 90% being committed to, and then your approval would be automatic.
We have here the means of which the people who are working within the industry to commit to programs and projects in a manner that is natural to their business. This is the way that the systems should be working today. What we have is an impediment to the operator in the industry who feels that participation in the study with the other producers would be worthwhile, however, the accounting and approval nightmare will haunt him for the next three quarters and subject him to such regulatory oversight as to question his moral integrity. So instead the project doesn’t get proposed, funded, participated in or done.
In Professor Dosi’s paper “The Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” he discusses the role that such administrative minutiae have on innovation.
The discussion will aim to identify (a) the main characteristics of the innovative process, (b) the factors that are conducive to or hinder the development of new processes of production and new products, and (c) the processes that determine the selection of particular innovations and their effects on industrial structures.
In our example the financial resources are there. The motivation exists within the organization to do a spectacular job on the project. What happens is the bureaucracy gets in the way and slows things down and makes it a task that requires superhuman effort to even try. And maybe one or two projects will get done each year on the basis of sheer will. But what is needed is the ability to conduct a volume of projects that is far in excess of one or two, and that is beyond the scope of the organizational context as the producers are organized today. Without the ERP systems to define and support these innovative processes, these processes will not spontaneously appear.
The emphasis is once again on the ability of these producers to innovate. The collaborations and interactions between producers and participants in the industry will be the source of many of the innovations that occur in the future. The impediment to doing these are as a result of the bureaucracy and the current suite of accounting systems in use in the oil and gas industry is what I want to draw a contrast to in this scenario using the Work Order. Its time in this day and age that the systems become as complex and as sophisticated as what is being described here so that the innovation in the earth science and engineering disciplines can occur. Professor Giovanni Dosi expands on this point further in the following quotation.
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.)
Within the project that the producers want to participate in. Some want to contribute a variety of different resources, some have specialized capabilities that are critical to the project and others are more or less along for the ride and are willing to participate by paying cash. Some have an AFE that has been approved that can direct the funds to pay for their participation. Some will incur the costs as part of their annual payroll budget for engineering. Still others have a working interest partner that are willing to share the costs over a number of Joint Operating Committees. The combinations and permutations of how a Work Order gets financed and funded are unlimited when we consider the number of different ways producers can participate.
Now to have a Work Order system that takes the information from these various parties and assimilates the understanding of the deal from the five or six people who have the “meeting of the minds” to initiate this project is the critical point in which to start. Each needs to codify their understanding of how their participation of the costs are funded and costed to their People, Ideas & Objects Partnership Accounting modules Work Order. All of the participants are using the one Work Order that is shared across all of the producers. This agreements understanding needs to be captured within the Work Order system prior to its approval by all of the producers. Much like an Accounting Voucher the costs need to be coded, but also the sources of the funds need to be identified. This way the system can process the charge within the firm in the manner that it was expected to be. For any charges that are above the threshold that a firm was willing to commit to, that imputes that another firm's cash commitment would be provided to cover those costs. The Work Order should make these cash transactions between these producers as a result of the approval of the document. The point of the exercise is that once the Work Order is approved, the understanding of the deal, as captured by the interface, is executed.
As I indicated the ability for an accountant to follow on with the necessary accounting for these transaction requires significant recreation of the “deal” and time of the parties who conceived of the deal in the first place. A bureaucratic waste of time. The interface of the Work Order should be sophisticated enough to be able to capture the substance of the deal in whatever permutation and combination that is conceived of by the originators. I understand the myriad ways that these can be done and the difficulty in making an interface that captures these. That I don’t think is the difficult part. What I think would be the difficult part would be to make an interface that provides these services in a manner that is simple and easy to use, and captures the deals substance. I, however, know it can be done, and the reason it hasn’t been done is that the budget for software developments like these have not been set out. Its at times like these that people should revisit our revenue model and rethink People, Ideas & Objects approach based on our projected budget.
Continuing on with the scenario of using the Work Order system across multiple producers. I will use this scenario to show how the Partnership Accounting modules integrated nature with the other modules of the Preliminary Specification provides value to these ad-hoc working groups. Also why they are such an important element of innovation in oil and gas.
We used the scenario in the context of engineering, however it could just as easily be used in the area of geology or any other area of oil and gas interest. It could also include the supplier or vendor marketplace to form a working group in that area. The importance of the way the Work Order works is that the producer or participant is able to designate how they are going to participate in the working group. Prior to their approval they are to allocate the source of the funds and where the costs will ultimately go as a result of their participation. This being conducted by each participant or producer in the working group, all within the same interface for the same Work Order in the People, Ideas & Objects Partnership Accounting module.
One of the most obvious areas that this interface will interact with the other modules is the Security & Access Control module. Access to the Work Order will need to be unlimited for a certain point in time and then need to be closed to everyone but the existing members of the working group. This will need to be an interesting point in time when the search for participants reaches a threshold and the people feel the substance for a working group exists. Then only those who are within the working group, or are subsequently granted direct access are able to participate directly in the working group.
With the Security & Access Control module we also inherit the Military Command & Control Metaphor that allows the people to impose a chain of command across the working group. This might be something that they want to do if they have a difficult task or a large group of people. The opportunity to do so is available to them if they so desire as this is part of the Security & Access Control modules core functionality.
The designation of the source of the funds and where the costs will go is coded directly to those accounts. This has the Work Order taking on elements of the Accounting Voucher module in terms of how it operates. Each producers accounting system will be charged, upon approval of the Work Order, according to the way in which they have coded the Work Order. Therefore in that instance it will take on many of the attributes of the Accounting Voucher module.
I see these working groups, as we have called them here, as an important element of how an innovative oil and gas industry identifies and solve the problems that it faces. 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.”
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? Clearly some companies are more effective at this process than others, but this research in oil and gas asks, is there a means for an organization to provide a quantum increase in its ability to innovate that leads to higher trajectories of performance based on production revenue per employee?
Having these working groups spawn at will without the bureaucratic and accounting logistical nightmare that they instill today will be an important first step in making the industry more innovative.
The complexity of the relationships within the Joint Operating Committees has to be captured and accounted for in the Partnership Accounting module of the Preliminary Specification. Whether we are talking about the various forms of contribution that a producer may make to the joint account, or how they may participate in a working group, the bureaucratic machinations of the accounting for these transactions can’t stand in the way of innovativeness of the producers.
The freedom to participate is inhibited by the fact that the business arrangements are difficult to capture and account for. What is needed is the ability to develop software that captures the substance of the manner in which the contributions are being made, and then the manner in which they are accounted for. That is the purpose of the Partnership Accounting module, to support the innovative oil and gas producer in the innovative actions they need to participate in. Once again Professor Giovanni Dosi points out specifically the need for the business aspects to support the technical aspects of the business.
Internalization and routinization in the face of the uncertainty and complexity of the innovative process also point to the importance of particular organizational arrangements for the success or failure of individual innovative attempts. This is what was found by the SAPPHO Project (cf. Science Policy Research Unit 1972 and Rothwell et al. 1974), possibly the most extensive investigation of the sources of commercial success or failure of innovation: Institutional traits, both internal to the firm - such as the nature of the organizational arrangements between technical and commercial people, or the hierarchical authority within the innovating firm - and between a firm and its external environment - such as good communication channels with users, universities, and so on - turn out to be very important. Moreover, it has been argued (Pavitt 1986; Robert Wilson, Peter Ashton and Thomas Egan 1984) that, for given incentives and innovative opportunities, the various forms of internal corporate organization (U form versus M form centralized versus decentralized, etc.) affect innovation and commercial success positively or negatively, according to the particular nature of each technological paradigm and its stage of development. p. 1135
Capturing the context of the deals made in both the Joint Operating Committee and working groups as described here in the Preliminary Specification can’t be done on an historical basis. What is needed is for the software to be sophisticated enough for the dealmakers to be using it while formulating the deal, to capture the substance of the deal, so that it will be used to allocate the costs and charge their accounting systems for these costs when they are incurred. Then and only then will the accountants have a chance of keeping up with the speed and innovativeness of the industry as it is contemplated here.
This is the necessary part of the People, Ideas & Objects software development team and most importantly, the user community. It won't be too difficult to capture the multiple and myriad ways in which a deal can be formulated. The algorithm will be complex but with time and money it can certainly be done. The real difficult aspect of making this critical part of the Partnership Accounting module work is the user interface. Having the ability of the user to intuitively use the module to capture their understanding of their part of the deal, capture it in the People, Ideas & Objects system and account for it on that basis. That is what is necessary to make this innovation possible.
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.
