Governance Over the Deployment of Capabilities

We are discussing the operational governance of the firm and Joint Operating Committee. An important element of this discussion is the capabilities that these organizations have access to. Earth science and engineering capabilities are documented in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules of the Preliminary Specification. And are one of the two key competitive advantages of the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer. Therefore from a governance point of view these capabilities need to be safeguarded and ensure that they are kept for your firms eyes only. Nothing could be further from the truth. Any usage of these capabilities will cause their leakage to member firms of the Joint Operating Committees you are a participant in. That is an inevitable fact. And it is imperative that the firm consider as their priority the use of their capabilities as having the right information deployed to the right people at the right time. Governance therefore should be concerned with the appropriate use of its capabilities, rather than the hoarding of information. From Professor Richard Langlois “Organizing the Electronic Century.”

"This is the basic modularization of the market economy. It accords well with the modularization G. B. Richardson (1972) suggested in offering the concept of economic capabilities. By capabilities Richardson means "knowledge, experience, and skills" (1972, p. 888), a notion related to what Jensen and Meckling (1992) call "specific knowledge and to what Hayek (1945) called "knowledge of the particular circumstances of time and place." For the most part, Richardson argues, firms will tend to specialize in activities requiring similar capabilities, that is, "in activities for which their capabilities offer some comparative advantage" (Richardson 1972, p. 888)." p. 27

What is it that we are trying to achieve in employing these capabilities? It is of course to generate value. But more importantly to generate value on behalf of the owners represented in the Joint Operating Committee. In economic terms this value is called “externalities.” After the operation, after the deployment of the right capabilities at the right time by the right people the value should have been gained by the members of the Joint Operating Committee.

So why don't we observe everywhere a perfectly atomistic modularization according to comparative advantage in capabilities - with no organizations of any significance, just workers wielding tools and trading in anonymous markets? We have already seen the outlines of several answers. The older property rights literature, we saw, would insist that the reason is externalities, notably the externalities of team work arising from the nature of the technology of production itself. The mainstream economics of organization is fixated on another possibility: because of highly specific assets, parties can threaten one another with pecuniary externalities ex post in a way that has real ex ante effects on efficiency (Klein, Crawford, and Alchian 1978; Williamson 1985). Richardson offers a somewhat different, and perhaps more fertile, alternative. Firms seek to specialize in activities for which their capabilities are similar: but production requires the coordination of complementary activities. Especially in a world of change, such coordination requires the transmission of information beyond what can be sent through the interface of the price system. As a consequence, qualitative coordination is necessary, and that need brings with it not only the organizational structure called the firm but also a variety of inter-firm relationships and interconnections as well." pp. 27 - 28

If the Joint Operating Committee coordinates these capabilities in the appropriate manner then the externalities will flow to the producers represented there. That is what the governance of the operation is most concerned about. That there was leakage of some documentation of these capabilities during the operation is immaterial to the externalities and the competitive position of the firm. Recall during our review of Professor Giovanni Dosi for the Preliminary Specification. His research showed that it took an equal and sometimes greater effort to copy another firm's capabilities then it did to generate the capabilities themselves. It is therefore more effective for a firm to focus on their key competitive advantages of their land and asset base, and their earth science and engineering capabilities. And the effective and efficient deployment of these competitive advantages on a “just in time” basis.

We have asserted and I am certain that it is generally agreed that the oil & gas industry is moving towards its scientific basis as its primary form of competitive advantage. The days in which financiers or lawyers could build viable producers based on their skills are numbered if nonexistent. There is also a perception that is developed through the Preliminary Specification that the producer is a firm that maintains financial interests in a variety of Joint Operating Committees. That the producer will deploy their capabilities to these assets when and where they are needed and as these capabilities are developed. These processes of capabilities deployment are under constant levels of change and innovation in the innovative producer. This level of change and innovation causes “Dynamic Transaction Costs” to be incurred, and for people to question the direction of the changes. What is needed is a method of governance in the Compliance & Governance module over the overall process of change to ensure that the ship maintains its course and the costs remain in line. Quotations are from Professor Richard Langlois “Transaction Costs in Real Time” paper.

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

We introduced the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” and we will now continue with its discussion. In our previous discussion we had the ability to mentor the Project Manager and oversee or supervise the operation if required. What we need to discuss now is broader and more global in scope. An interface that encapsulates the entire firm's operations so that the user can see that the direction the firm has taken in terms of capabilities development is being optimized in its Joint Operating Committees, etc. It would be of little value if the firm was expending valuable resources on developing its capabilities on multilateral fracing in shale formations when none of its Joint Operating Committees were deploying, or able to deploy the technologies.

With the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” the user would be able to review the entire operation as it happened. From the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” to the “Planning & Deployment Interface,” AFE, Job Order and “Lessons Learned Interface.” Review all of the actions taken and the documentation that was generated during the operation to determine what was the critical cause of the success or failure of the operation. This could be done in fine detail or in summary form to oversee the many operations that may have been conducted.

Another variable that is being captured by the Preliminary Specification is the “Dynamic Transaction Costs” themselves. These are the costs associated with change and innovation. When people run into these costs then they will know to tag them with the Dynamic Transaction Costs tag for further review. This will be a red flag in the “Operation Review & Governance Interface” for the user to trigger on. When they see high levels of “Dynamic Transaction Costs” then they know the operation ran in to high levels of change and / or innovation. Therefore they will be able to see the implications of these costs in the knowledge and information in the interface. And know that either some significant change or innovation was the result.

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.

Governance Over Coordination Without Incentives

With our review of Professor Richard Langlois writings we can see there will be an element of the Preliminary Specifications Compliance & Governance module that will be devoted to what we would call “operational governance.” We want to discuss the incentives vs. coordination issue of any operation that a Joint Operating Committee undertakes. This deals with the conflict between producers and service industry representatives and the high costs associated with any field operation. Producers feel that field costs are out of control and are imposing cost controls in an effort to better manage them. People, Ideas & Objects feel that coordination of the field operations and better communications will provide the appropriate means to control costs and will also provide for better outcomes. The coordination and communication coming about through the modules in the Preliminary Specification, specifically the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning. In his paper “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization” Professor Richard Langlois states.

More generally, we are worried that conceptualizing all problems of economic organization as problems of aligning incentives not only misrepresents important phenomena but also hinders understanding other phenomena, such as the role of production costs in determining the boundaries of the firm. As we will argue, in fact, it may well pay off intellectually to pursue a research strategy that is essentially the flip-side of the coin, namely to assume that all incentive problems can be eliminated by assumption and concentrate on coordination (including communication) and production cost issues only. p.17

Let's assume for a moment that the People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification is operational in your firm. You have the Military Command & Control Metaphor, the Planning & Deployment Interface, the AFE and Job Order systems operational as expected however your results continue to disappoint and the cost overruns are tragic. How do we ensure that the performance expectations are met and these poor performing situations are identified quickly and dealt with?

Either way it boils down to the same common-sense recognition, namely that individuals - and organizations - are necessarily limited in what they know how to do well. Indeed, the main interest of capabilities view is to understand what is distinctive about firms as unitary, historical organizations of cooperating individuals. p. 17

We should have an interface in the Compliance & Governance module that provides a user with the ability to oversee the operations being conducted in the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules. This interface should be called the “Operational Review & Governance Interface” which gives its user access to the operational information that is being undertaken. There they can interact, if desired, and supervise or mentor the project manager to ensure that the objectives are met and the costs are maintained. All with the understanding of how these objectives can be achieved, through enhanced coordination and communication, not through incentives.

In saying this, it's more about governance than about supervision. You want to be able to effect change when things go wrong, and you want to quickly identify when things do go wrong, however, you also don't want to unnecessarily interrupt the day to day 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.

Governance Over the Capabilities Revenues

Through our discussion of the Preliminary Specification we have noted that the innovative and profitable oil and gas producer will have two distinct sources of revenue. The first is the oil and gas production, and the second is the value added process of the specialized capabilities they provide to the various Joint Operating Committees, working groups they participate in, and other producers who may hire them for their specialized capabilities. This discussion deals with the governance over these capabilities to ensure that the revenues are recovered from the appropriate partners.

With the expanding volume of work required for each barrel of oil produced. The demand for earth science and engineering resources continues to grow. The supply of these resources are constrained as the ability to increase them in the short, mid and long term is difficult. People, Ideas & Objects has approached the supply of these technical resources by developing software that defines and supports a greater division of labor and specialization throughout the industry. We have also identified that the “operator” designation inappropriately requires that their capabilities be developed to handle any and all contingencies within the producer firm. The operator designation creates unused and unusable surplus capacity of earth science and engineering resources that are trapped within each producer firm. By pooling the technical resources available from the partners represented in the Joint Operating Committee. This pooling will take the available capabilities of each producer and match them to the needs of the property to ensure that the requirements are fulfilled. Additional capabilities can be acquired from the marketplace. Eliminating the otherwise trapped unused and unusable surplus capacity of these earth science and engineering resources in each of the producer firms. Capabilities provided in this fashion will be costed to the joint account on the basis of an industry standard cost that recognizes the education, skill and experience of the resource.

Revenues from the provisioning of engineering and geological capabilities to the Joint Operating Committee are a necessary part of the oil and gas business. Replacing the current operator overhead charges. With the expansion in the volume of work required for each barrel of oil produced there is commensurate difficulty in securing these capabilities in-house. There is also increased difficulty just to maintain the capabilities. The need for the producer to build the specialized capabilities becomes an issue of how to develop them if they can not source a dedicated revenue stream to support them. By having a dedicated revenue stream to support the engineering and geological costs then the producer can better manage their operation, and build their capabilities. There is a further issue when we apply the tools of specialization and the division of labor. The scope and scale of an oil and gas earth science and engineering capable operation, without the pooling concept being applied, becomes so broad as to become completely noncommercial.

In terms of governance the Preliminary Specification will provide the “Capabilities Revenues & Support Interface” in the Compliance & Governance module. This will provide a summary of all of the charges to the various joint accounts and working groups for any engineering and geological resources during the period the user requests. This interface will also have targets for the departments to achieve in terms of their percentage cost recoveries and budgeted incomes. These targets should be able to be allocated to the individual joint accounts.

These revenues should be displayed in the proper context on the “Capabilities Revenues & Support Interface.” That is to say they should be presented in a pro-forma income statement showing the costs of these resources, which would include resource costs and the various other costs of rent, technical support, equipment etc. This would show the progress in terms of how the firm had moved towards meeting its targets.

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.

Governance Over the Value Add

The level of innovation within the oil and gas producer has / will become more challenging as the earth sciences and engineering disciplines continue their steep trajectories. With high levels of activity in this area, and the implications being so broad and far reaching there will be areas where substantial value might be left uncultivated by the producer. These could be in the scientific or business areas and the question becomes who is responsible for seeing that this value is captured? This discussion will detail how the Compliance & Governance module of the Preliminary Specification deals with this situation.

With our look at technological paradigms and the effect they have on scientific and innovative trajectories in oil and gas. When discussing these points on innovation, it is important to remember that the sciences, the trajectories they are on, and the opportunities they generate for a producer, are accelerating and will continue to do so. With this in mind, we note that Professor Giovanni Dosi suggests two separate phenomenon are observed:

First, new technological paradigms have continuously brought forward new opportunities for product development and productivity increases.

Secondly “A rather uniform, characteristic of the observed technological trajectories is their wide scope for mechanization, specialization and division of labor within and among plants and industries.” p. 1138

As we have learned these new opportunities will be in the technological and business areas of the firm. The opportunities will be within the scope of the oil and gas businesses competitive advantages of its land and asset base, and earth science and engineering capabilities. However, much of it will also be generated outside of its core area, in the service industry, through the further division of labor and specialization, and in non-related business areas that are new and not well serviced by existing businesses. Most of this business value will be easily captured. That however does not necessarily mean that it should be pursued by the firm. It is critical at these times that the governance model ensure that the firm stick to its knitting and pursue its key competitive advantages. That to move outside of its core competitive advantages, to pick up some of these low lying fruits would be to distract it from the real job at hand. This has to be the job of those who are ensuring the governance model is upheld. At the same time, any value that is in the core competitive advantage that is not realized, must be captured and steps taken to systemically realize the value from that point forward.

To ensure that the firm remains within its competitive advantages there will be one interface developed with two different elements to it. This will be called the “Capabilities & Deployment Additions Interface.” The first element will be a summary of the additions that were made to the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface.” By reviewing the current additions, i.e. all of the text that was added in the last quarter, to the interface. The user will be able to determine if the firm has been able to maintain its overall focus on developing its capabilities in line with its goals and objectives. If it sees that it is suddenly researching the development of drill bits then it knows that it has wandered in an inappropriate direction. The second element is similar in its characteristics but uses the “Planning & Deployment Interface.” With the deployment of its capabilities it can see that the firm has deployed its resources in a manner that is consistent with its objectives and goals. That no capabilities were deployed to commission drilling rigs or similar unrelated activities during the quarter.

In the same way that the capabilities and deployment of them can be reviewed, the AFE and Work Orders can be reviewed for the quarter as well. These will provide an understanding of what the firm has done in participation with the partners and other producers in the industry. After reviewing these activities the user of the “Capabilities & Deployment Additions Interface” will be able to ensure that the focus of the producer has remained consistent with its objectives. Any potential deviations could be dealt with through discussions with management and corrective actions taken.

Focusing on where it can generate the greatest value is the only concern of the firm. To pursue the value that might be available in other areas is a distraction that should be of no concern. However, understanding that at the same time there is new value being generated as a result of the steep trajectories that the relevant and core strategic science is on. That this new value may be reflected in other areas of the firm, and needs to be captured is part of the “Capabilities & Deployment Additions Interface” of the Compliance & Governance module.

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.

Governance Over the Firms Collaborations

We want to discuss the governance of the firm and Joint Operating Committees collaborations. It is these collaborations between the industry participants and the service industry that will provide the fuel for the producer and Joint Operating Committee innovations. Good governance over these collaborations is also necessary from the point of view of ensuring that the firms capabilities are not unnecessarily leaked to areas where they are not required. We have stated throughout the Preliminary Specification that capabilities are as difficult to copy as they are to generate within the firm. That to copy the capabilities of another firm is as costly as developing them on your own. What this discussion is about is good governance.

We begin by discussing Professor Giovanni Dosi’s definition of a technological trajectory. The definition of a technological trajectory is the activity of technological process along the economic and technological trade offs defined by a paradigm. Dosi (1988) states “Trade-offs being defined as the compromise, and the technical capabilities that define horsepower, gross takeoff weight, cruise speed, wing load and cruise range in civilian and military aircraft.” People, Ideas & Objects assumes the technical trade-off in oil and gas is accurately reflected in the commodity pricing. Higher commodity prices finance enhanced innovation.

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

We have throughout the Preliminary Specification enhanced collaboration between the producer and other members of the various Joint Operating Committees the producer has partnered with, members of the industry, service industry participants and the general industry at large. These collaborations are with the expressed purpose of developing the technology and understanding of the firm and enhancing its innovativeness and capabilities. There are however limits to this exposure. For a variety of legal, proprietary, and other reasons certain things may not be able to be discussed openly. There is also the case that information regarding a certain capability will only be discussed with partners that have an interest in that property. That to release it to other partners would not be in the interest of the firm. How is the governance of these collaborations managed?

The capabilities within the “Dynamic Capabilities Interface” of the Research & Capabilities and Knowledge & Learning modules are restricted to those situations in which they are authorized. However, does that solve the problem. The issue comes down to the collaboration itself. Does the information slip out in the discussion between the individual and their counterpart at company b? What can be done once the collaboration has leaked the data? Not much and that is the issue that the governance has to deal with.

One of the first things we can do is centralize the publication of the collaborations to one area. There they can be approved for content before publication, and if any collaboration is deemed to be too revealing then it can be returned for editing, and further review before publication. This would slow the process of collaborations however that is a minor issue compared to the loss of critical information. Secondly the review before publication could be placed only on certain people who know the corporate secrets, then the workload would be less onerous. The problem with either of these situations is that it would take the time of someone very senior within the organization. To do this would require that we have a centralized “Collaboration Interface” that aggregates the firms collaborations into one central area. Therefore we will build this interface within the governance area of the Compliance & Governance module should any producer desire to use it.

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.

Governance Over the Process of Innovation

One of the areas that we covered in our previous discussion in the Compliance & Governance module of the Preliminary Specification. Is that good governance and innovation are not necessarily mutually exclusive. We want to discuss the “Lessons Learned Interface” that is initiated in the Knowledge & Learning modules of each Joint Operating Committee, and are aggregated in the Compliance & Governance module of the Preliminary Specification. And a new interface that we are calling “The Innovation Library.”

What we know about innovation can be summarized by Professor Giovanni Dosi. 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.”

With the demands for more earth science and engineering being required for each barrel of oil and gas produced. And the need to keep up with the steep trajectory of those sciences over the coming years. The oil and gas firm, and the individual Joint Operating Committees will be learning substantial volumes of new and valuable information about the business. The innovative oil and gas producer will also become capable of innovating off of these developments and expanding the knowledge of both the organization and quite possibly the science. Keeping good governance over these processes would seem to be counter productive, however, it doesn’t have to be.

One of the first things that we can do to provide good governance is to ensure that the same mistakes are not made over and over. Having the lessons learned populated from each of the Joint Operating Committees, up to each of the participant producer firms. Where each producer firm has the aggregated lessons learned from each of the Joint Operating Committees that they have an interest in. Then they can apply any lessons learned from any of the JOC’s to other JOC’s as may be required.

Another thing I think that we can do in the governance section of this module is provide a strong understanding of the innovative process. By compiling and assimilating the process of innovation into an understandable business process then the people who are charged with good governance will be able to understand what good innovation is, and what bad innovation is. Having a library of the science of innovation, some written by Professor Dosi, would alleviate the guess work and concern that some of the activities that were occurring in the firm were moving the firm down the wrong direction, when in fact they were good innovations. We know that innovation can be reduced to a quantifiable and replicable process. Therefore it should be governed on the same basis. However, that governance needs to be done in a manner that it is apprised as to what good innovation consists of. That good governance has a responsibility to understand the process of innovation just as much as the innovators do. Let's call this interface “The Innovation Library” of the Compliance & Governance module.

In general the uncertainty associated with innovative activities is much stronger than that with which familiar economic model deals. It involves not only lack of knowledge of the precise cost and outcomes of different alternatives, but often also lack of knowledge of what the alternatives are (see Freeman 1982; Nelson 1981a; Nelson and Winter 1982). 

This is not what those in corporate governance want to hear. What however should make them happier is that we have the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” in the Research & Capabilities module. Recall that this interface documents the information that the firm is involved in, and summarizes the activities that are currently ongoing and have costs budgeted. If a Work Order has some Research or Innovation being undertaken then it will be listed in the interface. If an AFE has some of these activities it too will be listed in the interface. Within the Research Budget Allocation Interface the ability of its user to review all of the activities that are ongoing within the firm would be possible. The risk of any duplications would be discovered and the budget allocation for research and innovation costs would be prioritized and given some corporate direction.

Additionally there is the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) providing governance over the innovation process. The MCCM was developed in order to be able pool the technical resources in the Joint Operating Committee, however it has just as much application in the producer firm. By using the MCCM for the innovative activities within the Research & Capabilities module, then the firm is able to keep a tight control over whom is involved in the innovation activities. By imposing a chain of command, and control over the people who may be seconded from different departments in the firm, the MCCM helps to provide good governance over the innovation in the firm.

We know there is more to innovation then this. Sometimes it is the un-qualifiable and un-quantifiable that we are seeking. Professor Dosi notes.

In fact, let us distinguish between (a) the notion of uncertainty familiar to economic analysis defined in terms of imperfect information about the occurrence of a known list of events and (b) what we could call strong uncertainty whereby the list of possible events is unknown and one does not know either the consequences of particular actions for any given event (more on this in Dosi and Egidi 1987). 

and

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

This has / will become the nature of the oil and gas business. Good governance over the innovation process will have to limit the amount of its involvement so that the innovations can develop. At the same time this does not preclude the oversight mentioned at the beginning of this modules description. And there may be substantially more “good governance” that the user community can determine when their involvement in these developments is unleashed.

Continuing with our discussion of corporate governance over the uncertainty of the innovation process. And how good governance will seek to moderate the investments in innovation and attempt to make it a routine aspect of the firms activities. We have noted that innovation is a quantifiable and replicable process, it is however, anything but routine. We do want to ensure that the innovations that are undertaken remain within the commercial sphere and not become science projects. At the same time I want to reiterate that innovation and good governance are not mutually exclusive. And with that jumble of contradictions lets continue.

Writing the Preliminary Specification is an innovation that People, Ideas & Objects is undertaking. It is something that is significant and will happen only once. It is not something that will happen every day and is unusual for it to be undertaken. These are the characteristics of innovation. When a firm undertakes to do something innovative it is usually something that is new and significant to their firm. It involves some risk and imputes a high level of uncertainty. Professor Giovanni Dosi notes.

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

Unfortunately this is the state of the oil and gas business as it stands today. That every well drilled is literally the result of someone's theory as to what the existence of oil and gas is. Certainly anything classified as exploratory, and much of the development work, would meet this criteria of being innovative.

As a result, firms tend to work with relatively general and event-independent routines (with rules of the kind “... spend x% of sales on R & D,” ... distribute your research activity between basic research, risky projects, incremental innovations according to some routine shares ...” and sometimes meta-rules of the kind “with high interest rates or low profits cut basic research,” etc.). This finding is corroborated by ample managerial evidence and also by recent more rigorous econometric tests; see Griliches and Ariel Pakes (1986) who find that “the pattern of R & D investment within a firm is essentially a random walk with a relatively low error variance” (pp. 10 - 11). 

Going back to the example of People, Ideas & Objects. Writing the Preliminary Specification is not routine, however, it is in a long line of routine research and development projects that have been undertaken to explore the development of user driven software for the innovative oil and gas producers, based on using the Joint Operating Committee.

In this sense, Schumpeter’s hypothesis about the routinization of innovation (Joseph Schumpeter 1942) and the persistence of innovation-related uncertainty must not be in conflict but may well complement each other. As suggested by the “late” Schumpeter, one may conjecture that large-scale corporate research has become the prevailing form of organization of innovation because it is most effective in exploiting and internalizing the tacit and cumulative feature of technological knowledge (Mowery 1980; Pavitt 1986). Moreover, companies tend to adopt steady policies (rules), because they face complex and unpredictable environments where they cannot forecast future states of the world, or even “map” notional events into actions, and outcomes (Dosi and Orsenigo 1986; Heiner 1983, 1988). Internalized corporate search exploits the cumulativeness and complexity of technological knowledge. Together with steady rules, firms try to reduce the uncertainty of innovative search, without however, eliminating it. pp. 1134 - 1135

This is where corporate governance does not necessarily conflict with innovation. Priorities and budgets need to be set and established. A corporate focus has to be imposed. That is what a good corporate governance model will provide the innovative oil and gas producer. Otherwise the firms pursuit would be an out of control science experiment. I think with the governance mechanisms that have been mentioned to date, the “Research Budget Allocation Interface” and the Military Command & Control Metaphor provide the beginnings of good governance. We’ll continue on with our discussion, however, I want to stress again that the user communities input into the Preliminary Specification will be able to provide substantial value in this area.

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

The Compliance & Governance Opportunity

When will the demand for more information from regulators end? Maybe a more constructive question would be to think how can we get ahead of this situation on a more permanent basis? Part of the answer to that question is software. We are approaching the development of comprehensive software for the innovative oil and gas producer with People, Ideas & Objects. This should be seen as an opportunity to take the time to rethink the compliance and governance of the producer firm. To begin the implementation of software that will solve the issues of compliance and governance on a more permanent basis. And by that I mean from the point of view of using software, the division of labor and specialization as the solutions to the problem.

Assuming that each producer has to meet regulatory requirements from a to z, that’s 26 jurisdictions. That’s 26 specialized talents that they would need on staff in order to meet those regulatory requirements within each producer firm. Now on aggregate, the industry has those same 26 jurisdictions. Why would we not break this down into 26 teams who are specializing into one jurisdiction each on behalf of all producers? Using software that is designed to meet the needs of that jurisdiction, they could do the specialized work on behalf of each producer in the industry. They could apply their services to the small start up firms and to Exxon Mobil. The specialized nature of the staff at each service provider would be more efficient and less costly than having the in house staff at each producer firm. Add to that the costs of developing specific software to meet the compliance needs being amortized over the entire industry, as opposed to incurred at each firm, and the costs of compliance are lower with better service.

If we review Professor Giovanni Dosi’s three key factors of innovation we find that regulation is a part of the third key factor. Clearly it is currently a drag on innovation. And what we have here is an opportunity to reduce the amount of drag on innovation in the industry.

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.)

At some point the volume of regulations will become economically impractical for each producer to maintain on their own. I think that time has passed and these costs of compliance degrade the industries profitability. It should be at this point that the regulations should force the producers to look at other means to organize the way they meet these requirements. In today’s marketplace that has to include software, the division of labor and specialization. And sees a shift away from the individual producers compliance and governance capabilities to a reliance on an industry wide compliance and governance capability. That is the opportunity that is being presented here in People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification.

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.

Governance Over Lessons Learned

The innovative oil and gas producer is supported through the People, Ideas & Objects application modules. Their innovativeness is what the system was designed to achieve. This is based on the fundamental belief that the higher commodity prices are financing greater innovation and the most innovative producers will be the most profitable. However, as we know with innovation there is an amount of failure that is a natural part of the process. Therefore with greater innovative success there will be greater failure. This deals with the governance of failure within the Joint Operating Committee and how it is handled in the Compliance & Governance module of the Preliminary Specification.

The first thing we should do is define these failures in their proper context and call them what they are generally referred to as lessons learned. These will be documented in an area within the governance section of the Compliance & Governance module for review by others. As we have discussed, a producer may have hundreds of interests in Joint Operating Committees located throughout the world. The ability to know what works and what doesn’t work, where the lessons are learned on a daily basis would be a valuable resource for a firm. Recall in the Knowledge & Learning module these lessons learned are being captured in each of the Joint Operating Committees. What the Compliance & Governance module does is aggregate these lessons learned from each of the JOC’s that the producer has an interest in and presents them in a database with all of the other JOC’s they have an interest in.

The point of this is to simply avoid repeating the same mistakes and expecting different results. If the firm knows that a certain operation is unsuccessful then it should cease to conduct that operation. Very simple in concept, very difficult to implement. With each of the producers within a JOC having access to the lessons learned the less they might occur. Even though the lessons learned are somewhat after the fact it is still worthwhile to know the information for others to avoid the same situation. Lessons learned may also show the way to the ultimate success. It should be policy that a firm require their designates to the JOC to report via the lessons learned interface all material deviations in operations. This would update the Knowledge & Learning for the specific JOC and the Compliance & Governance modules for each of the producer firms so that learning could be spread as far and as quickly as possible.

It was through our research that we discovered an interesting anomaly. Do these collaborations within the JOC create a leakage of proprietary knowledge and capability from one producer to the other? The question therefore becomes how is this proprietary information and capability deployed on an as needed basis? Professor Giovanni Dosi notes that “although the free movement of information has occurred in industries for many years, yet has never been easily transferable to other companies within those industries. The ability to replicate a competitive advantage from one company to another is not as easy, and may indeed be not worthwhile doing.” Dosi (1988) goes one step further and states, “even with technology license agreements, they do not stand as an all or nothing substitute for in house search.” A firm needs to develop “substantial in-house capacity in order to recognize, evaluate, negotiate and finally adapt the technology potentially available from others.” Therefore why not focus on the need to increase the company's own unique and specific sources and directions of competitive advantage? This also imputes that the free flow of information between producers through collaborations in the Joint Operating Committee would increase the knowledge, yet not expose anyone of the specific organizations to any specific losses of key knowledge, proprietary information or capability.

Within a JOC each producer is entitled to this information irrespective of its origins. What is needed is the means to mitigate the losses that might occur by repeating the same mistakes on a corporate basis. The ability to learn from its mistakes should be a strong part of any corporate governance module and that is why it is included here in the People, Ideas & Objects Compliance & Governance module.

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.

Governance Over the Joint Operating Committee

Throughout our discussion of the Preliminary Specification we have been describing two distinct organizational structures. The producer firm and the Joint Operating Committee. Up until now we have focused the Compliance & Governance modules discussion on the producer firm. The manner that the Joint Operating Committee is operated through the People, Ideas & Objects software application modules is to identify and support the seven frameworks that the JOC defines. The question therefore becomes how does the producer firm maintain governance over the producers working interest share of the Joint Operating Committee?

First we have the Military Command & Control Metaphor that is adopted across the organization so that producers within a Joint Operating Committee can pool their human resources, and impose a chain of command, control and governance over those resources. This pooling is done to offset the shortages of technical resources in the earth science and engineering fields that we have discussed. Since the pooling is comprised of resources from multiple producer firms the governance over those resources in the Joint Operating Committee is deferred to the Committee itself.

Each Joint Operating Committee is governed by their own agreement, operating and accounting procedure in most instances. These are the documents that are used to provide the operational means for decisions, policies and procedures to be used. The influence of one producer to skew the results of these decisions, policies and procedures may occur if they have a high percentage of the voting rights during the establishment of the agreement. Other than that the Joint Operating Committee will be left to operate based on the parameters that have been set and have minimal need for voting on these points in subsequent years. Where they will be active is in the budgets and the decisions as to the directions as to what and where the facilities should be developed. For this there are mechanisms to deal with the (non) participation of other producers and these will be documented by the JOC.

As we can see the voting rights the producer has in the Joint Operating Committee is the extent of their influence in the day to day business. Other than their determination of the amount of capital they will be expending. The JOC will operate in a completely autonomous fashion based on the parameters that were agreed to by the founding producers. There are voting rights and those may be significant in terms of their influence over the outcome but the producer organization and the JOC are two separate organizations for all intents and purposes.

Nonetheless, the need to ensure that the governance of the operations of the JOC are within the normal scope of operations and are a responsibility of the management of each of the producer firms. How then can the governance of the producer be extended over the JOC in a manner that meets this criteria and respects that each producer in the JOC will have similar concerns?

When a producer adds up the number of JOC’s they have an interest in, it could easily number in the hundreds. The simple management of hundreds of properties operating on a semi-autonomous basis presents its own issues and opportunities. Documenting all of the activities that occur within the JOC is not the issue. This would be the easy part of putting an interface over the various data elements and presenting that within the governance section of the Compliance & Governance module. I think we have to get more sophisticated than that and start capturing the activities and actions that are occurring within the JOC’s. Every time there is a vote the results of the vote are reported through to the governance interface to each of the partners. Every time there is an election, a non-participation, capital expenditure decision, etc., its reported through to the governance interface to each of the partners. Then the users of the data have a summary of the actions that took place in those number of JOC’s and can determine if any of the actions require their further attention. I am sure the user community has substantially more needs than these few requirements. And that is why the users have such a prominent role in the development of this software.

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.

Compliance & Governance of the Innovative Oil and Gas Producer

Throughout our discussion of the Preliminary Specification there has been a spirit of cooperation between the producers that participate in the Joint Operating Committee and the vendors in the service industry. Oil and gas remains and will always be a very competitive industry and this spirit does not detract from that competitiveness. The individual producer is ultimately focused on developing their land and asset base, and expanding their earth science and engineering capabilities for the financial gain of their shareholders. Control of the corporation, and hence its competitiveness, should be through the governance interface of the Compliance & Governance module.

This emphasis on governance has to consider the role of innovation in the market economy and assumes companies in a free market are willing to invest in science and technologies to advance the competitive nature of their firm. Some may see governance and innovation being two opposing forces on the same scale. That may be but I don’t think they have to conflict. You can have good governance and remain highly innovative and competitive. For instance look at Apple. No one would doubt they run a tight ship. I would suggest that it would be difficult to see an innovative corporate mindset come about from a poorly governed process.

One of the research questions that we asked in the Preliminary Research Report was “can the scope and understanding of the process of innovation; be reduced to a quantifiable and replicable process?” The answer to that is difficult to quantify. First you need the appropriate organization, such as the Joint Operating Committee, and it has to be supported by the aligned frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee, and then you need a service industry that is collaborating with the producers to develop the science and engineering products and services needed to develop the industry. So with that, that makes the answer to the research question an unqualified yes.

Having everything in place is no guarantee that innovation will arise. The people are a necessary element of the process. The best a producer can do is to provide the environment that will enable and enhance innovation, and that is what People, Ideas & Objects Preliminary Specification is designed to do. In terms of governance of that process I think we have given the producer some unique tools to maintain control over their firm and the Joint Operating Committees that they participate in. These tools include the Military Command & Control Metaphor, the Work-Order system, the Purchase-Order system, etc.

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.