Revenue Per Employee at the Joint Operating Committee

We want to discuss the publication of the specific Joint Operating Committee calculations of Revenue Per Employee, and particularly the trajectory that the factor is on. How this calculation could affect those that work within the property; and the use of this information contained within the Knowledge & Learning module of the Preliminary Specification.

First of all it is understood that not all people are necessarily assigned to work for one Joint Operating Committee. There are times when people might be assigned to dozens during the course of one month. Calculating the hours worked by the people within the Joint Operating Committee from the different companies is not going to be a difficulty for the People, Ideas & Objects software. With the Military Command & Control Metaphor within the Security & Access Control module the time and tasks that each individual will be doing is being recorded for these types of information purposes. Although most will only work part-time on a JOC, the factor will be converted on a full-time equivalent basis. Calculations of Revenue Per Employee for the property should be straightforward.

In previous discussions, the calculation of a comparison of the factor of revenue per employee from one period of time to the other, or trajectory, was raised. These trajectories were the real key in determining where the factors were heading. Was the property accelerating its innovativeness, or decelerating. We also broke down the trajectory into three different types of variances. The volume variance, price variance, and employee # variance. Each of these variances reflecting the reason why the trajectory might have changed. All of these variables should be shown on their own “Revenue Per Employee” interface within the Joint Operating Committee. Each member that is assigned to the property should have access to this page and be able to contribute ideas and suggestions on how to improve the factor. An open collaboration focused on Revenue Per Employee. In addition, this page could have a historical context of many time periods captured in a graphical format. Showing over the past many years how the revenue per employee at that Joint Operating Committee has performed.

We also learned that revenue per employee reflects the asymmetry (revenue per employee is widely variable) of the assets within the industry. That asymmetry would be very apparent in a comparison of Joint Operating Committees. And I am not suggesting that the comparisons are valid, just pointing out that the industry has a large asymmetry in their competitive makeup. The comparison of revenue per employee for the same property over time however, will have a significant impact on the people that work for that Joint Operating Committee.

One certain way to increase the factor of revenue per employee would be to fire all the employees. However, the best way to deal with the factor is described by Professor Giovanni Dosi when he 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.”

Members of the Joint Operating Committee would be able to turn to the "Dynamic Capabilities Interface" which contains the capabilities of the producer firms that are part of the partnership. There the people would be able to see what the firms offered in terms of their earth science and engineering issue identification and resolution capabilities. It may then be realized that applying some formerly unknown capability to the situation in the JOC will yield greater productivity... or something along those lines.

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.

Emulating the Small Producers Adaptability

This discussion will provide a focus on Professor Giovanni Dosi’s 1988 paper “Sources, Procedures and Microeconomic Effects of Innovation." We also metaphorically move from the “practice field” of the Research & Capabilities module to “game day” with our football analogy in this the Knowledge & Learning module. In reviewing what has been written so far in the Preliminary Specification I was interested in this comment. The domain of the Joint Operating Committee is; “the ability to innovate will not only permit the oil and gas producer to find more oil and gas, increase the production of oil and gas from the field, but will also provide innovative ways in which to deploy its capital and reduce its costs.” Which seems to capture the focus that the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules provide the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee.

What we have so far in the Knowledge & Learning module is three interfaces. The first is the "Dynamic Capabilities Interface" which is the published version of each of the producer firms capabilities. These capabilities are sorted based on geological zone, and other criteria, and published based on those criteria. Therefore each Joint Operating Committee receives access to the capabilities that are pertinent to that JOC from each producer. Getting the right information to the right people at the right time. There is also a “Knowledge Area” that includes the policies, procedures, operational and management information for the property. This area also includes what is commonly referred to as the well file in terms of the information that is contained within it. Lastly there is the “Lessons Learned” interface where the people who work within the JOC record the information on the operations that did not follow the expected outcomes.

Let's review the three key factors of innovation Professor Giovanni Dosi notes:

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

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

Recall that these key factors are being funneled through the Research & Capabilities “Dynamic Capabilities Interface." It is there, in the producer firm, that the greater issues of the science, the capabilities, microeconomic trends and public policy, etc. can be centralized and dealt with on behalf of all of the Joint Operating Committees that the producer may have an interest in. To expect that each individual JOC would deal with these greater issues would be unproductive and disorganized. By dealing with these points, and codifying them in the Dynamic Capabilities Interface the producer firm is publishing the appropriate information to the JOC at the appropriate time. Then the JOC has only to deal with the issues and opportunities of the property and none of the noise that may or may not be arguing for attention.

One of the first items that we address in the Knowledge & Learning module of the Preliminary Specification. Is how the items within the various “Dynamic Capabilities Interfaces” of the many producers who are participants in the Joint Operating Committee are populated into the Knowledge & Learning module. As we have discussed each producer publishes the pertinent capabilities they have to the various Joint Operating Committees. Therefore the people who are working within the JOC are presented with a variety of capabilities that may be duplications and similar to others. That would be reasonable to expect. However, just as the football team's playbook may have similar looking plays, they may have subtle differences in the manner in which they are executed, etc. That would be the same case in the Knowledge & Learning module.

It would also be the case that company A who is a member of the Joint Operating Committee have developed a capability for XYZ operation that is considered state of the art in the industry. This capability is one of several that are listed in the Knowledge & Learning modules Dynamic Capabilities Interface for XYZ operation. However, the Joint Operating Committee has operational decision making authority, and it is decided to execute the capability of company B for XYZ operation through the Knowledge & Learnings modules fourth interface the "Planning & Deployment Interface" instead. The JOC is the operational decision making authority who have the choice as to how the day to day operations are implemented. Their motivation is based on performance and they are most familiar with the property. In the football analogy this would be the quarterback calling an audible.

As technical paradigms are introduced, Joint Operating Committees will accept and use these innovative capabilities at different rates. This rate of acceptance can be classified as early innovators, imitators and fence sitters. Thus a satisfactory understanding of the relationship between innovation and distribution of JOC’s structural and performance characteristics implies an analysis of the learning and competitive process through which an industry changes. Professor Giovanni Dosi notes these behavioral attributes.

Finally, empirical studies often show the coexistence, within the same industry and for identical environmental incentives, of widely different strategies related to innovation, pricing, R & D, investment and so on. Specifically with regard to innovation one notices a range of strategies concerning whether or not to undertake R & D; being an inventor or an early imitator, or “wait and see”; the amount of investment in R & D; the choice between “incremental; and risky projects, and so on (see Charles Carter and Bruce Williams 1957; Freeman 1982 and the bibliography cited therein). Call these differences behavioral diversity. p. 1157

We have seen over the past twenty years an interesting trend that has created significant differences in the stratification of the oil and gas industry in terms of the size of the producer and their associated innovativeness. The small organization was able to purchase reserves and facilities from the open market only to substantially increase the inherent value through increased production and / or performance. We can conclude that the bureaucracy inherent in the hierarchy had stifled the innovativeness in the larger organizations and most disturbing is the lack of concern or identification of this as an issue over the past number of decades.

With this structure and arrangement between the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules, focused around the Joint Operating Committee, replicating the small oil and gas producer and focused on performance. The probability that the lumbering bureaucracy has been defeated is significant.

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.

Learning Through Markets

It's important to point out the context of what the Joint Operating Committee will be learning. To do that we turn back to the definition of where the boundary of the firm and market is defined. The Joint Operating Committee must rely on the market for a majority of the work that is done in the field. I understand that this depends on the size of the facility and it will vary based on the types of operations and a variety of other conditions. In Professor Richard Langlois’ paper “Transaction Cost Economics in Real Time” he notes the following constraints will be imposed on the Joint Operating Committee as a result of their dependence on the market.

The firms learning ability will depend on its internal organization. And the learning ability of the market will depend on technical and instructional factors, as well as on the learning abilities of the firms it comprises, considered both individually and as a system. The remainder of this paper is devoted to considering these two learning systems in slightly more detail. More specifically, it will set out some preliminary generalization about how the level of capabilities in the firm and the market - and the nature of change in those capabilities - affects the boundaries of the firm. pp. 111 - 112

What the contractors know, and what they think they know may be not relevant to your property. We discussed the fact that the general rule is that the operations being conducted are reduced to the understanding of the least experienced individual on the crew. How do we avoid the general rule being applied to any detailed operation? And how do we avoid what are called the motivational and cognitive paradoxes from becoming the “mindset” of the contractors on this or any of the Joint Operating Committees operations?

As background the motivational paradox arise from the production bias. That is, “users lack the time to learn new applications due to the overwhelming concern for throughput. Their work is hampered by this lack of learning and consequently productivity suffers.” The cognitive paradox has its root in the assimilation bias. People tend to apply “what they already know in coping with new situations, and can be bound by the irrelevant and misleading similarities between the old and new situations.” This can prevent people from learning and applying new and more effective solutions.

To add an extra layer of complexity to this process. Recall that we have changes that are being made in the marketplace as a result of the gap filling process seen in the Research & Capabilities and other modules. This being an application of the division of labor and specialization process that deals with the overall organization and efficiencies of the industry. This will have a direct effect on the makeup of the contractor and the learning processes in this module.

These issues become the concern of those users of the Knowledge & Learning module of the Preliminary Specification. In an innovative oil and gas industry change will be the constant variable that needs the attention of everyone concerned. How do we maintain the awareness and attention that is necessary of everyone to learn what is needed? Within Langlois’ paper I think we see the answer to the problem detailed within this discussion and in the review of Langlois’ definition of Dynamic Transaction Costs.

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

The answer is, there will be large, in comparison to what is incurred today, Dynamic Transaction Costs expended by the Joint Operating Committee through the Knowledge & Learning module of the Preliminary Specification. This is a strategic necessity whose alternative is for the producers to move all of the operations in-house and manage them internally. Not a viable alternative. If we identify what these Dynamic Transaction Costs are (not having the capabilities available when they are needed) in the process of incurring them and record them as such, then we can deal with them and learn from them. That may be the first step in learning what to do with the learning costs in this high change and high cost era of oil and gas.

In the end the choice of whether to use the market or to vertically integrate is a purely academic exercise. In oil and gas the choice to depend on the market is a given and there is little practical application in the alternatives. What our discussion has been about is more to learn from the discussion of how we can establish processes of learning from using the marketplace. In a period of rapid change with high levels of innovation we are going to be stretched in terms of our capabilities, knowledge and capacity to learn. These areas are the focus of the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. As the business of the oil and gas business is managed through the interfaces of these modules, the People, Ideas & Objects application will need to identify the point when Dynamic Transaction Costs are about to be incurred. Then they can be controlled, effective learning put in place and the capabilities necessary to strategically mitigate these issues developed or implemented to avoid these costs. And provide the Joint Operating Committee with the successful operation. As noted in Langlois’ paper “Transaction Cost Economics in Real Time”;

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

and

Ultimately, the costs that lead to vertical integration are the (dynamic) transaction costs of persuading, negotiating with, coordinating among, and teaching outside suppliers in the face of economic change or innovation. (Teece, 1986). pp. 115 - 116

and

But in cases in which systemic coordination is not the issue, the market may turn out to be the superior learning engine because of its ability to generate rapid trial and error learning. p. 124

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

Dynamic Transaction Costs and Capabilities

What is it that the people who work for a Joint Operating Committee know? Where does a person that has just been assigned to the property learn what is important about it in terms of how its run? Where is this history kept, who maintains it, and how is it accessed? We have discussed the knowledge area of the Knowledge & Learning module of the Preliminary Specification, I want to shift the discussion now to the learning area.

Let's first review Professor Langlois’ definition of Dynamic Transaction Costs.

Over time, capabilities change as firms and markets learn, which implies a kind of information or knowledge cost - the cost of transferring the firms 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

Our efforts in the learning section of the Knowledge & Learning module must be to reduce the Dynamic Transaction Costs of the Joint Operating Committee. That is to adapt to change efficiently. Change is the one constant, learning to adapt to that change is critical. Recognizing the high costs associated with Dynamic Transaction Costs, or change, therefore has to be handled from a strategic point of view. This will initiate the discussion and begin documenting how the learning section of the module is configured to capture this data and information.

We now turn to a quotation from Professor Sidney Winter in his paper “Deliberate Learning and the Evolution of Dynamic Capabilities” to define some of the risks we face in the changing environment of the innovative oil and gas producer.

In a relatively static environment, a single learning episode may suffice to endow an organization with operating routines that are adequate, or even a source of advantage, for an extended period. Incremental improvements can be accomplished through the tacit accumulation of experience and sporadic acts of creativity. Dynamic capabilities are unnecessary, and if developed may prove too costly to maintain. But in a context where technological, regulatory, and competitive conditions are subject to rapid change, persistence in the same operating routines quickly becomes hazardous. Systematic change efforts are needed to track the environmental change; both superiority and viability will prove transient for an organization that has no dynamic capabilities. Such capabilities must themselves be developed through learning. If change is not only rapid but also unpredictable and variable in direction, dynamic capabilities and even the higher-order learning approaches will themselves need to be updated repeatedly. Failure to do so turns core competencies into core rigidities (Leonard Barton 1992).

We need to strike a fine balance between these two somewhat opposing goals. Strategically control the Dynamic Transaction Costs and maintain an environment of dynamic capability for change and organizational learning. Note one of the capabilities of the Preliminary Specification will the ability to “tag” a transaction. Included within those tags will be a tag “Dynamic Transaction Costs” which will identify these costs when they are being incurred for further investigation.

The first component of the learning module will include a wiki styled information repository that contains the operational, policy and management of the property. This will be managed by the Security & Access Control module so that only those that are assigned to the property are able to access the wiki. Within the wiki will be the life history of the property in terms of the information that has been collected. Well files, schematics, reports, agreements, etc. Everything and anything, indexed and referenced electronically. Recall too the Knowledge area contains the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the producer firms affiliated with the Joint Operating Committee.

Another section should be set out for “Lessons Learned” in which to document where decisions were made based on actions or activities that occurred of interest. These have a dramatic influence on everyone in terms of their learning and understanding about the property. As these occur these items should also be published to each person in the property as well as being posted in a central location. As with the Research & Capabilities module the ability to act on these items in terms of right clicking on them and generating an AFE, a Work Order, a Purchase Order, prepare a new Capability or any of the other documents in the People, Ideas & Objects application modules should be possible based on the users needs. More will be discussed about lessons learned in the Compliance & Governance module.

Again it might be argued or asked, why is the ERP vendor so involved with the operational concerns of the oil and gas producer? The simple answer is that it's the business of the business of oil and gas that needs to be supported by the ERP system. And that is the Joint Operating Committee, for both the oil and gas business and the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification. It's not just about debits and credits anymore, it's about identifying and supporting the business 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.

Getting to the Business of the Business

Throughout our discussion of the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. We have been discussing the earth science and engineering research, developments, innovations and thinking of the oil and gas producer and the Joint Operating Committee. Many of you may be wondering what exactly does an ERP system have to do with these activities? Simply these activities are where the business of the oil and gas business are being conducted. It is imperative that the systems that manage the commercial aspects of the firm define and support the people and activities that occur in these areas.

The final look and feel of these two modules will ultimately be the result of the user input and their involvement. These modules are where the business of the oil and gas business are happening. It will be within these modules that the engineer or geologist will never have to leave. If they find an idea within the research area of the Research & Capabilities module they should have the opportunity to right click their mouse to have a list of options to prepare a Work Order, Prepare a Budget, Raise an AFE or Resource a Project. The ultimate list of actions would include the supporting activities of a user defined commercially focused ERP system.

Today there are significant financial resources available for innovation. The commodity price increases are an allocation of capital to fuel innovation. The reorganization of a producer to facilitate innovation is the purpose behind the research that People, Ideas & Objects conducted. That research was the basis of the Preliminary Specification of which the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules are critical parts of. These modules are the two key points where innovation occurs. Within these modules there is a flow of “knowledge, skills and experience” and ideas from the service, and oil & gas industries, through to the producer firm, and then those capabilities are sent to the Joint Operating Committee where they are applied and specific learning occurs.

There will be many ideas and there will be a lot of money spent in the coming decades. Successful innovation is not cheap. Unsuccessful innovation is terribly expensive. The difference is as stark as Apple’s iPad commercial success vs. HP’s Touchpad lasting only seven weeks. What we do know is that innovation can be reduced to a defined and replicable process. And although just having the innovation processes in place will not guarantee innovation. I can guarantee that innovation will not arise without the defined and replicable processes, such as People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification, in place.

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

Introduction to the Knowledge & Learning Module

The title of the Preliminary Research Report was “Plurality Should Not Be Assumed Without Necessity." This of course being Occam’s Razor which in its simplest form means - the simplest explanation is most likely the correct one. Very appropriate when we are talking about using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. However, I also noted in the Preliminary Research Report that Occam’s Razor was referenced as “Its not what you know that you do not know that hurts you. It's what you do not know, that you do not know that will. It must be considered that there is nothing more difficult to carry out, nor more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to handle, than to bring about a new order of things.” Knoop & Valor (1997).

Imagine we are now in the Joint Operating Committee with full operational decision rights with respect to the course of action to take. Thanks to the work that is done at the participating producer firms we know what we know from their work in the Research & Capabilities modules. Those capabilities are populated into the Knowledge area of the Knowledge & Learning module. Now the rubber hits the road and the theory comes to practice.

We now move onto the Joint Operating Committee focused Knowledge & Learning module of the Preliminary Specification. This module shares many similarities to the Research & Capabilities module, and in fact is populated with the capabilities from that module as its base of information. Recall that the objective that we are working to achieve is to move the knowledge to where the decision rights are held, the Joint Operating Committee.

As I noted the Research & Capabilities module should be organized based on geologic zones and other criteria. This is so that the capabilities that are pertinent to each zone can be separated and populated within the Knowledge & Learning module. Additional ways in which the capabilities may be sorted in the Research & Capabilities module might include geographical location. Where all the vendors who operate within a certain geographical location are referenced only in those regions in the Knowledge & Learning module.

With each Joint Operating Committee being concerned with one or a handful of geologic zones. The focus of the Joint Operating Committee will be limited to just those specific areas. What is particularly different about the Knowledge & Learning module, however, is that the information that is contained within the module is aggregated from multiple producers. Any of the participating producers who have capabilities contained within their Research & Capabilities module will have those pertinent capabilities for those geologic zones populate the Knowledge & Learning module for that 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.

Preamble Part VI

Our Value Proposition

It is People, Ideas & Objects claim that we provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. The final aspect of our claim is that our Revenue Model provides the lowest cost of obtaining an ERP system in the industry. And that is by charging for the costs of software development, plus an element of profit as our fee structure. Therefore the industry is only paying for the one time costs of ERP software development. A fundamentally more efficient value proposition than any of our competitors.

We can do this because we are not focused on the traditional software company concerns of code and customers. As a cloud computing provider we are oriented to the changing business dynamics of an innovative oil & gas, and associated service industries. This highlights the different motivations of the software developer over the long term. In People, Ideas & Objects instance we generate revenues on the basis of the changes that industry desires. Our motivation becomes the constant improvement of the software. In the traditional software vendor’s case they are motivated by their code and customer bases. The larger their code base the more difficult it becomes to change, which coincidentally does not generate revenue. And the larger the customer base the more costly the changes that need to be made to each customer. Which coincidentally these changes to the customer software do not generate any revenues. Hence, their age as a firm paradoxically leads to increases in their overhead burden. What you have is a contrast in the dynamic nature of the software itself. In terms of its cost to the industry and the motivation behind the developer.

Within our Revenue Model we have an annual fee and penalty structure for those who have not participated on a timely basis. Isn’t the penalty, when paid, a benefit to the software developer above their regular fees? No, it is not. The penalty structure is designed so that each producer pays an equal share of the total costs of all of the development. There are no free riders in this program. If a producer were to wait until the fifth year to start to participate in the user community and use the software that was built by others; then they would have to pay the fees for those past five years plus the associated penalties as well. These fees and penalties would then be used to offset the following years costs before the calculation of the next years fee assessment. So the next years fees would be proportionally less the amount of any fees and penalties that were paid by producers who decided to join the community and use the software. We call this the participation bonus.

Each year we specify the amount that each producer's share of costs will be based on a fixed charge per boe. These will be on the basis of estimates of our understanding of what is required to maintain and develop the software to meet its competitive advantage. So there is an inherent level of trust in the work that is done through the community, and the financial support that is provided. The research and software development necessary to make this happen can be significant and needs to be undertaken in a timely fashion. With today’s tools it can be done in a commercial fashion with remarkable speed. The real inhibition will be the communities ability to think fast enough. The producers are a critical part of the community. What can not happen is to have the funding for this development terminated as a result of a lack or fading interest by the producers. It is therefore inherent upon me to provide a compelling reason for that funding cut never to happen. And that is through the fact that we provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

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

Preamble Part V

Earth Science and Engineering Resources

We now move on to the fifth component of our competitive advantage of providing the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Our focus is on the earth science and engineering resources of the producer firm and how these are more efficiently and effectively employed in comparison to what we call the standard corporate business model employed by the bureaucracy. There are many aspects of this component of our competitive advantage, however, they all generate their profitability for the producer through innovation, specialization and the division of labor.

In the area of innovation we look to the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules to highlight the processes that are managed within those modules. Focused on the development, documentation and deployment of capabilities within the Joint Operating Committees. It is there that the research and development of those earth science and engineering capabilities are funnelled into the Joint Operating Committee for their ultimate deployment. From an innovation standpoint there is also the Work Order that enables the innovative producer to participate and sponsor working groups to research and study various earth science and engineering based projects. Designed to eliminate the bureaucracy and the inherent difficulty in managing the accounting logistics for the ad hoc nature of these groups. The Work Order is an interface that enables the user to allocate their overhead and AFE budgets to these studies in a manner that is consistent with the nature of the opportunities.

The specialization and division of labor of the producer firms earth science and engineering resources takes on the difficult issue of the constraint of these resources. Over the next couple of decades the demand for these resources will outstrip supply due to retirements and the inability to bring on any increase in the numbers of new recruits. There just isn’t that percentage of the population that has the aptitude for geology or petroleum engineering. The need therefore to deal with the resource constraints is a problem that the industry must resolve and the Preliminary Specification has used specialization and the division of labor to do so.

One of the key difficulties is what I call the hoarding issue. Each producer is building the capabilities within their firm to deal with any contingency at any time. This hoarding of earth science and engineering resources, when taken across the industry, builds unused and unusable surplus capacity within each producer firm. With each producer firm attempting to provide all of the capabilities necessary for their producer firm, these critical resources are unnecessarily constrained. The solution that is provided within the Preliminary Specification is what is called the pooling of technical resources. Each member of the Joint Operating Committee commits the technical resources, based on their unique specialized capability, to the property. Any deficiency is made up from service providers or outside producers who provide the additional earth science and engineering capabilities for a fee.

Which brings up the last aspect of the division of labor and that is as it applies to the bread and butter aspects of geology and engineering work. Much of this work can be turned over to service providers who are organized on the basis of providing a specialized service to the industry. Organized around a process or skill that is common or generic and could be specialized to a high level if the scope and scale could be brought into the picture.

It is reasonable to assume that industry will turn to specialization and the division of labor to deal with these resource restrictions. However, without the pooling concept being a critical element in the solution, the scope and scale of the producers domain of earth science and engineering capabilities, because of the enhanced specialization and division of labor, will most certainly create further shortages in the resource base due to the hoarding issue. And lead to chronic unprofitability due to the enlarged scope and scale necessary to cover their operations.

In a few years having each producer conduct all the earth science and engineering necessary for all of their properties will seem like a business model from the dark ages. What is being proposed here in the Preliminary Specification is the only reasonable solution to the real issue of the limited resource base. It is the earth science and engineering capabilities that form a critical part of the innovative oil and gas producers competitive advantage. The Preliminary Specification enables the firms resources to focus on the specialized research and development of “knowledge, skills, experience” and ideas, and the deployment of those in the properties that are held by the firm. This is the appropriate posture for a profitable oil and gas firm, and the fifth component in how People, Ideas & Objects provides the oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

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

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.