Some Clarifications, Part I
The history over the past three decades that I’ve been involved in ERP software developments has been interesting. In the early 1990’s there were more vendors involved in the business than you could count on all your fingers and toes. Probably close to thirty in total. What happened and why did this industry atrophy to essentially P2P and SAP? Investors in the 1990’s were keenly interested in the development of software and were active in most of these vendors. The difficulty was there just isn’t that large of a market in terms of oil and gas producers. Advantage oil and gas producers. Which they played to their advantage, as they do with all the secondary and tertiary industries, as both an art and a science. Playing one vendor off with the other in terms of pricing and ensuring that little to no money was ever expended on the licensing of these products was the end result. The software vendor was usually awarded an annual service contract as a percentage of the original sales price. Which of course cut the funding from the ERP investors leading them to eventually permanently leave. Since then it has been a slow and painful atrophy of the industry. Even Oracle who started out with a large commitment of developing software in early 1997 was unable to negotiate reasonably with the industry and left in frustration with the full understanding of the small size and hence, limited upside from the market. Their exit was at some point in the 1999 / 2000. At the sametime Qbyte shifted hands from PriceWaterhouseCoopers to IBM who were attempting to source redevelopment dollars from the industry. This approach also failed to raise the funds from industry and in 2005 IBM sold Qbyte to P2P. Leaving no new developments being undertaken in the industry other than People, Ideas & Objects. If the oil and gas industry had followed Oracle or IBMs lead earlier this century they may not be in the pickle that they find themselves in today.
Nonetheless what’s done is done and the only comprehensive research towards solving the overproduction issue and preparation for an innovative industry was undertaken by People, Ideas & Objects. This took from August of 2003 to December 2013 and can be reviewed on this blogs entries throughout that time, and the Preliminary Specification itself as the result. Software development has to have an overall vision or roadmap in order for people to focus and prepare the solution in a cohesive and functional manner. These are the difficult, preliminary work that leads to a much higher success rate in any software development project. This preliminary work doesn’t take much money but it certainly takes a serious amount of time and effort pursuing false promises, blind bunny trails until the right solution is found. This is the alternative that oil and gas producers have to pursue today if they find the conditions that I am stating here unpalatable. The only question they’ll need to ask is do they have that ten years or more to spend now that their probably collectively losing the value of our budget several times a month?
When your competitor or customer paints themselves into a corner such as oil and gas has today, it’s not the time in which you should be gracious and forgiving. This is a business and there is no one that will support People, Ideas & Objects from an investment point of view. Producers made that impossible. At the same time the publication of our draft Preliminary Research Reports received such a violent response from the industry, one that has continued to this day, that we’ve received no financial support from producers either. If we should continue without the financial resources necessary to develop the Preliminary Specification what difference would that make to us? Nothing, business as usual. We would also be foolish to expect that industry will suddenly become friendly towards us and be hospitable. Our software developments would be a necessity for the industry and the bureaucrats wouldn’t necessarily all line up to give us their best. We expect the adversarial relationship to continue and survive throughout our developments.
What we have done therefore, in my opinion, is provide the oil and gas producers with the opportunity to structure themselves with the software defining organization necessary for the next 25 years. If we were to take the position of the producers, that position they have traditionally put forward in their standard operating procedures, then the success of this initiative we feel would be in jeopardy. After all how is their business functioning today? For us to ensure the rebuilding of the industry successfully requires that we set the following conditions in a manner that will ensure the worst, self defeating, cultural propensities of the producers are eliminated in the development of the Preliminary Specification. The producers would like nothing better than to control the development by paying the costs as we went along. Providing a commensurate fee to People, Ideas & Objects for our efforts. Our concern is that their short attention spans would preclude the completion of the project if the price of oil should achieve three consecutive weeks of increases. The question of why they were developing expensive software would be asked and the determination that the project would be cancelled as a result. The project could never survive being temporarily shut-down nor achieve any manner of successful developments if the producers were controlling our revenues. We can not be “blind sleepwalking agents of whomever will feeds us.” The producers would sit back and blame or accuse us for any situation that was not to their specific liking. This would become an untenable and unmanageable situation where it may only be proven that the bureaucratic management process is the only viable choice. With the financial resources in hand we would be able to proceed at the direction of our user community as to what is required in the software. There is only one successful way in which to provide successful software and that is to base it in the user community, a community that we have been developing since the first quarter of 2014. This is an uncompromising methodology. There will be no decisions necessary as to which priority drives the development, we have no investors looking to cut costs, and producers will have input into the user community as their means to ensure their needs are met. There will be no Service Level Agreements executed between People, Ideas & Objects and the producers. We only recognize the user community. Our budget funding will be documented for the producers by People, Ideas & Objects simply issuing an invoice in the full amount of our budget to each of the producers for their share of the costs when paid.
The Preliminary Specification, our user community and service providers provide for a dynamic, innovative, accountable and profitable oil and gas industry with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. Setting the foundation for profitable North America’s energy independence. People, Ideas & Objects Revenue Model specifies the means in which investors can participate in our future Initial Coin Offering (ICO) that will fund these user defined software developments. It is through the process of issuing our ICO that we are leading the way in which creative destruction can be implemented within the oil and gas industry. Users are welcome to join me here. Together we can begin to meet the future demands for energy. And don’t forget to join our network on Twitter @piobiz anyone can contact me at 403-200-2302 or email here.