Preamble Part IV

Lower Costs of Exploration and Development

We now come to the fourth component of our competitive advantage of providing the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operation. It is the lower costs associated with any field work done for exploration or development. This would also include the field operations on producing properties that were covered by a workover or an AFE.

There have been many complaints from the oil and gas producers about the high costs of field operations. I have written about the accusations made by producers toward the service industry and how the situation has developed and what needs to happen in order to correct these. Everyone would agree that a more productive environment needs to be developed between the service industry and the producers. And I have put the onus on the producers to begin the process of building the capabilities for a more dynamic and innovative service industry. This can begin by developing the Preliminary Specification and implementing the changes within it to start the ball rolling.

There are a variety of interfaces within the Resource Marketplace and Research & Capabilities modules that provide windows to the service industry. These collaborative interfaces are designed to deal with the one issue that is systemic throughout the oil and gas industry. That issue is the manner in which the oil and gas producers deal with the ideas of others who have developed them. They ignore them. And they use them without respect to who the rightful owners are. This is counter to their own best interests. What has happened is that those that know the time and effort necessary to develop a new idea will not take the effort because the oil and gas industry will not respect their efforts, and therefore they don’t bother developing the idea. No new ideas are coming into the service industry at a critical time when the science in oil and gas is becoming paramount. And to add to the problem the oil and gas producers will not hire anyone for field operations that are not of a certain size and scope to handle the job. So all of the money is going to the larger firms in the service industry, no new competition is being developed and no new ideas to support that new competition. Is it any wonder that the producers complain about the costs associated with field operations?

In order for People, Ideas & Objects to claim that we provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. We need to show that the costs associated with field operations would be lower in an environment where the Preliminary Specification would exist. By having the oil and gas producers respecting the ideas of others in the service industries will be all that is required to make the changes from the current status to a dynamic and innovative service industry. There are a variety of interfaces and modules that are dedicated to the initiating, sponsoring and supporting of ideas throughout the Preliminary Specification. As I indicated, these are what are necessary for both an innovative oil and gas and service industry. When drilling a well in a shale formation can cost ten to fifteen million dollars the opportunities for innovation are strong. Today no one is motivated to do so because the producers will not respect the owner of the idea. So everyone just picks up their paycheck and carries on. Its a simple matter for the oil and gas industry that you reap what you sow. Recall in the quotation of Professor Giovanni Dosi that investments in innovation is for the purpose of profits. That reasoning applies in this instance as well in that the innovation will reduce the time, effort and costs of field operations by finding a better way.

In the most general terms, private profit-seeking agents will plausibly allocate resources to the exploration and development of new products and new techniques of production if they know, or believe in, the existence of some sort of yet unexploited scientific and technical opportunities; if they expect that there will be a market for their new products and processes; and finally, if they expect some economic benefit, net of the incurred costs, deriving from the innovations.

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.

Preamble Part III

Innovation for Profits

As the third element of our competitive advantage, of providing the innovative oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. We focus on innovation as the way in which to enhance the profitable nature of the producer. Innovation for profit, particularly from the scientific basis of the business, is the successful perspective for the 21st century oil and gas producer. From Professor Giovanni Dosi.

In the most general terms, private profit-seeking agents will plausibly allocate resources to the exploration and development of new products and new techniques of production if they know, or believe in, the existence of some sort of yet unexploited scientific and technical opportunities; if they expect that there will be a market for their new products and processes; and finally, if they expect some economic benefit, net of the incurred costs, deriving from the innovations.

The Preliminary Specification has been designed to capture the “what” and “how” of innovation within the software that will be used by the innovative producer. Throughout the modules the principles and understanding of innovation were researched and incorporated into the software. Our research included the works of many but most particularly Professor Giovanni Dosi and his key paper “The Sources, Procedures, and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation” (1988). It was there that we learned many of the fundamental aspects of what is necessary for the oil and gas producer to focus on innovation. Recall that it was in our Preliminary Research Report (2004) that we learned that innovation can be reduced to a defined and replicable process.

To highlight a few of Professor Dosi’s key points on innovation, in this next quotation he notes the opportunities, the processes of innovative search, and incentives to investments in innovation.

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

and

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

• Capabilities and stimuli generated with each firm and within the industry of which they complete.
• Broader causes external to the individual industries, such as the state of science in different branches, the facilities for the communication of knowledge, the supply of technical capabilities, skills, engineers etc.
• 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.)

Innovating for profit is the third element of People, Ideas & Objects key competitive advantage of being the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. It is within the DNA of the Preliminary Specification how the processes of innovation are identified and supported that enhance the ability of the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer.

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.

A New Hypothesis

Throughout our writings and particularly in the Preliminary Specification there is the understanding that organizational change will only occur after the software has enabled the changes first. That we are dependent on software in our organizations and as defined in Professor Anthony Giddens Structuration theory, we are enabled and constrained by these structures. Our hypothesis takes this understanding and extends it across the economic horizon. And concludes that as a result of the inability, or lack of capability, to amend the ERP software in organizations today, economic growth has stalled. We are, or should be, wholly dependent on a deliberate and purposeful pursuit of specialization and the division of labor. That the concept of spontaneous order, which is necessary for specialization and the division of labor, is eliminated through the use ERP software systems.

It was in the Preliminary Research Report that we first discovered Professor Anthony Giddens Structuration theory and Professor Wanda Orlikowski model of Structuration. In terms of its definition we have this quote from Olga Volkoff

From the perspective of structuration theory, adaptation is the joint effect of the actions of individuals and the institutional structures which those actions take place. Structures such as business strategies, organizational culture, reward and control systems, patterns of communication, and professional norms both enable and constrain the daily activities of people, but do not wholly determine them. 

ERP systems, particularly those installed in the larger organizations, are the modern equivalent of pouring concrete into your organization. The ability to make even a small change in a process requires the dedication and sacrifice of several peoples careers. The importance of this is possibly lost on the following two quotations. First is Fredrich Hayek on spontaneous order.

It is the other way round: man has been able to develop that division of labor on which our civilization is based because he happened to stumble upon a method which made it possible. Had he not done so, he might still have developed some other, altogether different, type of civilization, something like the "state" of the termite ants, or some other altogether unimaginable type.

And this next quotation is from Professor Richard Langlois. It describes how specialization and the division of labor are expanded.

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

People, Ideas & Objects provide a software development capability to the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer. Our revenue model is structured to support change. To avoid the difficulties that are evident in the economy today. To provide solutions to the issues that occur in the oil and gas industry. Solutions in both the administrative and in the operational domain. Operational issues such as our decentralized production model which provides the oil and gas producer with 2012 opportunity costs in the area of $94 billion. The decentralized production model can not be achieved in any manner other than by programming the industry through software. It is that simple, and that matter of fact, that we rely to this extent on software today. It is the same situation in other industries.

Within several modules of the Preliminary Specification there is the “Gap Filling Interface.” It enables users of the software, from the service and oil & gas industries, to publish areas where they sees gaps in the offerings being provided. This will open up communication and collaboration on the types of services and products that can be developed that are needed to fulfill those gaps. In addition with the software development capabilities of People, Ideas & Objects the software can be amended to deal with any change in the process to accommodate the gap filling process.

Spontaneous order brought us to this point. Unfortunately software systems have put a roadblock in its way. We now have to consciously workaround this roadblock and work to expand our economies deliberately and purposely. Our hypothesis suggests that today’s slow growth economy is severely constrained by the software and systems that are in use today. We need to fight to overcome these constraints. We also need to fight the bureaucracies who find comfort that their franchise is unchallenged by simply keeping the software intact.

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.

Preamble Part II

The Decentralized Production Model

It's been several years since natural gas prices have declined. And its not that the prices that were being realized before then were all that spectacular. With the costs associated with exploration and production, and particularly shale reserves, its no surprise that producers are reporting losses on operations. What is surprising is that producers have done nothing to mitigate the overproduction that has caused the decline in pricing. The reason for this chronic overproduction is the producers have to generate the revenues to cover the overheads they incur in the “high throughput production” model they employ. This model has the overhead costs of the producer firm being incurred whether there is production or not, and as a result, makes their operation a high cost operation even at full production. At lower production volumes it skews their earnings and overhead costs appear out of place.

In the Preliminary Specification the “decentralized production” model is employed. This model has been defined by Professor Richard Langlois as:

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

All of the administrative and accounting service providers that we discussed in the previous section charge for their services directly to the Joint Operating Committee. This makes for the conversion of the producers fixed administrative and accounting costs into the Joint Operating Committees variable administrative and accounting costs. Therefore, if there is no production, there is no charge for the administration or accounting item and neither the producer or the Joint Operating Committee is incurring any overheads during times of shut-in production. For example no charges would be made for Production, Revenue or Royalty Accounting to the Joint Operating Committee. Therefore the only costs that would not be covered during times of shut-in production are the costs of capital. The producer can therefore shut-in production that is not meeting the marginal cost and save those reserves for a later time when they will be produced profitably. And keep that production off the market until the commodity prices rise to the point where they cover the marginal cost. Putting an effective floor on the prices of the commodity markets.

If producers across the industry follow this process by subscribing to People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification then prices would not have the significant declines that we have experienced in the last several years. If the downswing in natural gas prices were averted by way of a fifteen percent reduction in natural gas production volumes, therefore increasing average prices to $6.70. We projected total revenues (and profits) of the North American natural gas industry would have been $94 billion higher than what they have been. And those are just the opportunity costs for 2012. Making all of the production under this scenario exceed the marginal cost and be profitable. And for any shut-in production, no loss on operations would have been incurred because there would have been no overhead or production costs.

Adding the ability to shut-in production on marginal operations to the ways in which People, Ideas & Objects provides the innovative oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of operations is a substantial part of our competitive advantage. Shutting in production is the logical thing to do but producers refuse to do it due to the impact on their performance. The method used by People, Ideas & Objects would actually improve the profitability of the producer, retain the reserves for the future when prices rise, reduce the costs of operation and remove the excess production from the marketplace.

Whereas today’s continued unprofitable production maintains high cost operations, adds the losses on operations to the cost of the reserves to be recovered from future operations, requiring even higher prices and depresses prices. Instead of doing what it needs to do, the bureaucracy will continue to do what it know’s how to do, particularly when it lacks strong leadership. Which based on past history is nothing. But lets be honest, maybe their strategy of hoping for a cold winter will come through this year.

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.

Preamble Part I

I thought we would take a break between the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules to review the Preamble to the Preliminary Specification. There are six sections which will be published in six separate blog posts over the next three days. Each section deals with one aspect of the value proposition that People, Ideas & Objects provides the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer.


People, Ideas & Objects competitive advantage and value proposition is that we provide the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. We do this by providing the software that supports a business model that defines the following characteristics.

Specialization and the Division of Labor

Our focus on the areas of specialization and the division of labor and how these tools will be highly effective in reducing all of the costs incurred in the producer firm.

What we do know is that today we stand on the shoulders of giants and benefit from a very sophisticated and complex specialization and division of labor. Today everyone in oil and gas has attained skills from education and training, and gained experience from years of working within their chosen field to conduct very select and highly specialized work. To disrupt this in any fashion without a full understanding of the global aspects of how specialized this work has become would be a failure. At the same time, with the corporate model proving to be unsustainable, the focus will be on cutting costs. Cutting too deep could have greater implications than what were intended. The point is to move to a higher level of specialization and division of labor will not be done, and can not be done without significant forethought.

Secondly we have to consider the role of software in our society. If we intend to move to a higher level of specialization and division of labor. Then the software that we use, and particularly the ERP software, is going to have to define and support those changes. Therefore we are not only going to have to deliberately plan the next level of specialization and division of labor, we will need to build the systems that define and support it first, before the implementation of any changes or benefits will be seen. This is one of the defined benefits of having the software development capability of People, Ideas & Objects.

If we review the Preliminary Specification there is a defined restructuring that takes place throughout the modules based on a higher level specialization and division of labor of the industry. The oil and gas producer is a stripped down version of itself that has the C class executives, earth science and engineering resources, a bit of legal, land and minor support staff. And that’s it. The rest of the producers needs are provided by service providers. And each of these service providers are focused on one process, or one element of a process, that is organized and specialized across the industry. So for example there would be a lease rental payment service provider that handles all of the industries lease rental payments. Where the cost of the lease rental payment, and the billing for the lease payment service provider is billed directly to the appropriate Joint Operating Committee. Not to the individual producer. Eliminating the fixed nature of the producers administrative and accounting costs, and replacing them with the variable nature of the Joint Operating Committees administrative and accounting costs.

What are the advantages of moving to a system or methodology such as this. Cost and efficiency are the reasons. The costs associated with the lease payment service provider would be a small percentage of what is incurred by the industry today. By focusing on the most efficient way to process lease rental payments, and only lease rental payments the service provider would become so specialized as to reduce the time and effort in administering these tasks as to be a small component of the costs today. In Adam Smith’s pin factory, his research yielded a 240 fold increase in productivity from the changes that he made in the process of making pins. Having the lease rental payment process and other processes in the industry subject to this type of analysis, complete with the software development capability of People, Ideas & Objects, similar results in productivity could be attained. All economic growth is a result of specialization and the division of labor.

When we consider the current corporate model attempts to provide the producers administrative and accounting needs for all that falls within their domain. And the understanding that is necessary to support those administrative and accounting tasks. The ability to build that administrative and accounting capability is costing each and every oil and gas producer their profitability. What will become to be seen as an archaic business model will be the way in which the industry is operated today. It has to because it is unsustainable. And a more effective and efficient business model based on a higher definition of specialization and division of labor will become the norm through the adoption of the Preliminary Specification. The industries survival requires it. What we are in essence doing is moving from a reliance on the producers administrative and accounting capabilities to a reliance on the industries administrative and accounting capabilities. And this assures our targeted market, the oil and gas investor, that we do indeed offer the most profitable means of oil and gas operation. As without the software to define and support this higher level of specialization and division of labor, it will not happen.

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 Research & Capabilities Module

The Research & Capabilities module documents the earth science and engineering “capabilities” of the innovative and profitable producer firm. Capabilities have been defined as those “knowledge, skills and experience” of the firm. People, Ideas & Objects have added “ideas” to that list. Capabilities have also been defined as “knowledge begets capabilities, and capabilities beget action.” These are the cornerstone of an innovative and profitable oil and gas producer in the 21st century. These capabilities are developed here in the Research & Capabilities module for publication in the pertinent Joint Operating Committees through the Knowledge & Learning modules.

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

Lastly bringing new knowledge and capabilities into the organization are what provide economic growth. Deployment of that new knowledge to the right people at the right time is the challenge that the producer faces and the role that the Research & Capabilities module undertakes in the producer firm.

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.

Two Primary Processes of Innovation

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

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

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

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

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

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

To preclude the opportunities to act upon these types of discoveries would leave the spontaneity out of the oil and gas industry. When faced with the knowledge that is provided to the user from the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” some things may become obvious. Serendipity is a word that is used in economics. We should adopt it here to ensure that a dynamic and innovative nature of the industry is the result.

But there is more that we are doing in this secondary process. We are building on the already well established earth science and engineering capabilities of the producer firms of the Joint Operating Committees. This broadening of the scope of users occurs at the same time there is limiting of the focus to just that Joint Operating Committee. Professor Langlois notes.

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

and

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

What is therefore needed is a means to capture innovations that arise from this secondary process. Whether they are in the domain of the service industry or in the earth science and engineering fields. A means to turn them into the primary innovation process so that they can be further populated throughout the various Joint Operating Committees that the firm participates in. That will limit the amount of trial and error learning costs that might occur if each Joint Operating Committee were to field test their own innovations based on the ideas they may have heard elsewhere.

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.

Professor Richard Langlois on Capabilities Part IV

A Critique of the Bureaucracy

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

• The pattern of existing capabilities in firms and market. Are existing capabilities distributed widely among many distinct organizations, or are they contained importantly within the boundaries of large firms? p. 360
• The nature of the economic change called for. When technological developments or changes in relative prices generate a profit opportunity, does seizing that opportunity require a systemic reorganization of capabilities (including the learning of new capabilities), or can change proceed in autonomous fashion along the lines of an existing division of labor? p. 360
• The extent of the market and the level of development of market supporting institutions. To what extent can the needed capabilities be tapped through existing arrangements, and to what extent must they be created from scratch? To what extent are there relevant standards and other market-supporting institutions? p. 360

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

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

In the Preliminary Research Report I suggested that the oil and gas industry was not fundamentally different than the former Soviet Union in terms of its ways and means. Going through the motions and determining “best practices” shows a high level of stagnation present in the industry. We see the natural gas prices that everyone watches but no one does anything about. Everyone complains about the service industry, but no one does anything about it. Its as in the former Soviet Union where there was no bread because everyone was lined up at the bakery waiting for bread. The market system hasn’t existed in the oil and gas industry for so long, no one even knows what it would look like. From Professor Richard Langlois book “The Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism” chapter 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economic Growth Through Organizational Change

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

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

The first, and most obvious, point is that it was an outside individual, not an organization, who was responsible for the reorganization of the industry. Lazonick is right in saying that genuine innovation involves reorganizing or planning (which may not be the same thing) the horizontal and vertical division of labor. But it was not in this case “organizational capabilities” that brought the reorganization about. It was an individual and not at all a “collective” vision, one that, however carefully thought out, was a cognitive leap beyond the existing paradigm. If SMH came to possess organizational capabilities, as it surely did, those capabilities were the result, not the cause, of the innovation. p. 46

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

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.

Professor Richard Langlois on Capabilities Part III

What are Capabilities

We continue our review of Professor Richard Langlois’ research through the Research & Capabilities module of the Preliminary Specification. It is in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” that we are seeking to document the “what” and “how” of the earth science or engineering capability, or operation the Joint Operating Committee will undertake. It is important to note at this point that tacit knowledge can not be documented. The tacit knowledge will however be invoked through orders in the Job Order system. The depth of “knowledge, skills and experience” that is documented in the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” includes the members of the Joint Operating Committee, their roles and responsibilities, and the field operations personnel. Detailing what and how they need to do their jobs in order to attain the objective of the operation. In a paper entitled “Transaction Costs in Real Time” Professor Langlois notes:

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

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

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

In this discussion as well as in any and all oil and gas field operations. The ability to do any of these tasks on autopilot doesn’t exist. And the implications of the next quotation is far reaching.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and

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

If running a successful oil and gas company was easy everyone would be doing it. We certainly are moving into a challenging time for a challenging business. Those that want to step up are going to need to have the organization defined and supported by the software the firm and Joint Operating Committee uses. Software that documents the capabilities of the earth science and engineering resources of the producer firm. And the capabilities of the service industries market offerings. Software like People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specifications Research & Capabilities module.

The Impact of Technology, 

We now want to discuss the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” from a different perspective. One in which we are looking more high level at the attributes of what we are attempting to achieve. With this perspective it should be possible to see how the Preliminary Specification relies on the dynamic service industry marketplace, and defines and supports the framework to execute field operations with military precision. These two seemingly contradictory objectives are attainable when we realize the field operations are a temporary snapshot of the marketplace’s offerings. Once that operation is complete, that organization for the field operations and its capabilities will never exist again. That is not to suggest that the capabilities are deleted from the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface,” it's just that they do not exist in the organization that was used for that specific field operation.

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

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

In order to achieve the organizational performance necessary to meet society's demands, it will require the technologies to be put in place first. This was one of the key findings of the Preliminary Research Report. We live in a time and a place where technology plays such a significant role in our day to day lives. That to change our organizations requires that we change the technology first. This same theme is picked up by Professor Richard Langlois in his paper “The Vanishing Hand: The Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism.”

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

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

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

There will be significant changes made to the markets during the times we are developing the People, Ideas & Objects software. Changes that will need to be captured in the software. There is never a best time in which to approach these changes, however, now with approximately $94 billion in annual opportunity costs, (please review the decentralized production model) the time has well past for the industry to have acted.

Tacit Knowledge

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Professor Richard Langlois on Capabilities Part II

Operational Control through the Job Order System

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

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

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

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

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

This next quote is from a Berkeley study and is dated in 1989, a time when the Japanese and the Americans were fighting over dominance in the microchip manufacturing industries. Apparently the two industries were configured quite differently, as Berkeley notes below. And it is the Americans that grew to dominate the industry at the Japanese almost total capitulation. The organizational structure of these industries is interesting to see a quarter century later. 

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

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

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

Modularity in Systems and Organizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remember we are spanning the oil and gas industry and the service industry. The marketplace and the firm. To achieve the efficiency and effectiveness of the interactions between the two industries will require this approach. To incorporate elements of modularity into the systems that we build we have certain design considerations to include. In terms of the temporary organizations that we are creating here for these operations, I think the key focus will have to be on standards. 

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

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

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

The Costs of Operational Efficiency

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.