Where's the Money!

Only a crisis - actual or perceived - produces real change. When that crisis occurs, the actions that are taken depend on the ideas that are lying around. That, I believe, is our basic function: to develop alternatives to existing policies, to keep them alive and available until the politically impossible becomes the politically inevitable.

Milton Friedman

Sir Winston Churchill spent the better part of a decade prior to WWII arguing that Adolf Hitler was a threat that had to be dealt with. While still a Member of Parliament, he was ostracised and reduced to writing about what he saw for that decade. On May 2, 1935, upon learning of the imminent German air superiority he spoke in the House of Commons.

When the situation was manageable it was neglected, and now that it is thoroughly out of hand, we apply too late the remedies which then might have affected a cure. There is nothing new in the story. It is as old as the Sibylline books. It falls into that long dismal catalogue of the fruitlessness of experience and the confirmed unteachability of mankind. Want of foresight, unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, lack of clear thinking, confusion of counsel until the emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong -- these are the features which constitute the endless repetition of history. 

On September 12, 2001 we had learned of a new threat to our way of life. We may be learning of a new threat today in our high levels of dependence on the Chinese economy, and an existential threat that non commercial operations have had on the North American oil and gas industry.

The actions this past weekend of Russia and Saudi Arabia declaring war on North American shale producers is completely rational, reasonable, understandable and predictable. They were inevitable. Over the past three years OPEC+ have removed production off the market in material ways. Ceding market share to North American shale producers. People, Ideas & Objects believed this was evidence that oil and gas commodities were price makers as small changes in volumes made large movements in prices. This lesson was not heeded. In 2017 BP’s Chief Economist noted that the world had twice the required supply of oil until 2050, and therefore it would be the low cost producers choice to produce at whatever price. Shale is the second highest cost production next to heavy oil. These high cost sources of production must take up the role of swing producers. Scaling production up and down to meet the changes in demand. Ensuring that all production is profitable everywhere and always. There are only two ways in which profitable operations can be achieved in North America. Through deceptive accounting as the industry has done for the past four decades. Or fund the Preliminary Specification with its decentralized production models price maker strategy. The choice is that simple. Producers can continue with their strategies of muddling along and doing nothing, augmented now by pristine environmental statements. Continue to blame and excuse themselves while their cash and working capital is consumed even further, but faster now. Or they can hear that jarring gong of self-preservation and fund People, Ideas & Objects development of the Preliminary Specification.

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 American energy independence. People, Ideas & Objects have published a white paper “Profitable, North American Energy Independence -- Through the Commercialization of Shale.” that captures the vision of the Preliminary Specification and our actions. 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.

McKinsey on Centered Leadership

Today we continue on with the topic of leadership with review of two papers from McKinsey (here and here) that look into a research term they call Centered Leadership. Recently we had the opportunity to review an article from John Hagel and John Seely Brown on the need to develop leaders, and we noted how leadership is a skill that can’t be automated by computers. We’ll start with a quick review of the five elements of McKinsey’s centered leadership and then look at each element closer.

Over the past six years, McKinsey has developed a map of capabilities we call centered leadership. This concept has five dimensions: meaning, or finding your strengths and putting them to work in the service of a purpose that inspires you; positive framing, or adopting a more constructive way to view your world and convert even difficult situations into opportunities; connecting, or building a stronger sense of community and belonging; engaging, or pursuing opportunities disguised by risk; and energizing, or practicing ways to sustain your energy on a long leadership journey.

Applying these dimensions to the prospective users and Community of Independent Service Providers provides the following.

Meaning

People, Ideas & Objects is focused on providing the innovative oil and gas producer with the systems needed to identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Through this revolutionary change, the industry will be able to better manage their operations. We have also asserted that through use of People, Ideas & Objects software and the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP), we are able to provide the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. This is our competitive advantage and the we derive meaning from these facts. (Most profitable operations are attained through the lowest cost ERP system, and the software identifying and supporting enhanced divisions of labor and specialization.)

Time and again, we heard that sharing meaning to inspire colleagues requires leaders to become great storytellers, touching hearts as well as minds. These skills are particularly applicable for executives leading through major transitions, since it takes strong personal motivation to triumph over the discomfort and fear that accompany change and that can drown out formal corporate messages, which in any event rarely fire the souls of employees and inspire greater achievement.

Framing

People, Ideas & Objects sees the world optimistically. We live in times where intellectual leverage is being offered and made possible by advanced Information Technology. Setting us on a revolution that is equivalent to what we realized through mechanical leverage in the industrial revolution.

Positive psychologists have shown that some people tend to frame the world optimistically, others pessimistically. Optimists often have an edge: in our survey, three-quarters of the respondents who were particularly good at positive framing thought they had the right skills to lead change, while only 15 percent of those who weren’t thought so.

Connecting

To continue on with the theme of revolution, communications are cutting through the bureaucracies enabling us to connect to like minded individuals. People, Ideas & Objects software developments provide users and members of the Community of Independent Service Providers with the opportunity to leverage their connections into the commercial realm.

With communications traveling at warp speed, simple hierarchical cascades—from the CEO down until the chain breaks—are becoming less and less effective for leaders. For starters, leaders depend increasingly on their ability to manage complex webs of connections that aren’t suited to traditional, linear communication styles. Further, leaders can find the volume of communication in such networks overwhelming. While this environment can be challenging, it also allows more people to contribute, generating not only wisdom and a wealth of ideas but also immeasurable commitment.

Engaging

Of survey respondents who indicated they were poor at engaging—with risk, with fear, and even with opportunity—only 13 percent thought they had the skills to lead change. That’s hardly surprising: risk aversion and fear run rampant during times of change. Leaders who are good at acknowledging and countering these emotions can help their people summon the courage to act and thus unleash tremendous potential.

An element of engaging is how People, Ideas & Objects doesn’t take the time and effort of individuals without understanding the risks and fears they may have. Therefore, the ability to move forward with this project demands that the financial resources be in place before anyone is asked to contribute. People, Ideas & Objects will not ask anyone to incur either monetary or career risks from being involved in this project.

Managing Energy

McKinsey notes:

Sustaining change requires the enthusiasm and commitment of large numbers of people across an organization for an extended period of time. All too often, though, a change effort starts with a big bang of vision statements and detailed initiatives, only to see energy peter out. The opposite, when work escalates maniacally through a culture of “relentless enthusiasm,” is equally problematic. Either way, leaders will find it hard to sustain energy and commitment within the organization unless they systemically restore their own energy (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual), as well as create the conditions and serve as role models for others to do the same. Our research suggests sustaining and restoring energy is something leaders often skimp on.

Sustaining the energy for this project is something that I consider to be an important part of what I do. For the past five years in which we have been writing about using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. We have been able to define the Draft Specification and carry this vision and strategy through some difficult periods. Keeping our “powder dry and our candle lit” for the day in which we begin the development of these systems. This process will continue until such time as the producers learn that their existing ways and means of operation are no longer able to generate value. When producers begin to lose money, we’ll know that our day is close at hand.

Moreover, this survey underscores the impact when leaders embrace not just one or two but all five dimensions of centered leadership. As our 2009 survey also suggested, finding meaning in one’s activities has the strongest impact on general satisfaction with one’s life, but the more dimensions that respondents say they have mastered, the more likely they are to rate themselves highly satisfied with their performance as leaders and with their lives generally.

For this project to succeed leadership from all areas will be needed. As automation of business processes continues and accelerates, skills such as leadership will increase in the day to day activities of most people. Looking ahead what does McKinsey recommend from their research in centered leadership?

• Centered leadership equips leaders for leading change. Among leaders who have mastered all five dimensions of centered leadership, 92 percent say they have the skills to lead through times of major change (versus 21 percent for those yet to master them). Since most executives are living through particularly turbulent economic times, a focus on centered leadership could benefit leaders significantly.
• Big organizations can learn from small ones. Across the board, executives at smaller organizations say they have mastered more dimensions of centered leadership and feel better about their work performance and overall satisfaction. These results suggest that larger organizations have much to learn from small ones on how to attract, motivate, and inspire their employees.
• Future leaders are most at risk. We have long believed that mastering centered leadership is most important for younger women and men who desire to lead, a belief these numbers underscore. The youngest respondents report the lowest scores in all dimensions except connecting. Given the correlation between higher scores and good outcomes, such as leadership effectiveness and general satisfaction, companies would benefit from undertaking the cultural transformation that centered leadership augurs.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Leadership Call-to-action

McKinsey, The Psychology of Change Management

McKinsey, once again, have published an article that provides real value and discussion to the work we are doing here at People, Ideas & Objects. Change is a difficult process to manage. This article discusses the psychology around change management within organizations, and therefore is relevant, but I want to mention a few aspects of People, Ideas & Objects unique perspective before we review this paper.

There are two types of changes that affect organizations. The first type of change is to steer the ship in a new direction, one that is believed to be the better choice for all concerned. The second type of change is the type that is forced upon an organization by events that are beyond the control of anyone. People, Ideas & Objects is oriented to the second type of change. One that addresses the scope of the forces of change that are being exercised on the oil and producer.

The forces of change that are currently being asserted on the oil and gas producers are significant. The change in oil and gas prices affects all aspects of a producer firm. At the same time the volume of engineering and earth science effort per barrel of oil continues on a steep upward trajectory. A third major change that is occurring is what I would call the maturation of the Information Technologies (IT), bringing new and innovative ways of doing business. These are of the type of changes that are seen once a century. Fundamental changes that have the power to re-configure the makeup of an industry.

To accommodate the changes that are acting against the producer firm, People, Ideas & Objects prescription is to align the producers internal processes. By simply moving the compliance and governance frameworks to be in alignment with the Joint Operating Committee’s legal, financial, operational decision making, cultural and communications frameworks. Our research has shown that this alignment increases innovativeness and accountability, to name just two of the key benefits.

Alternatively, left unaddressed, these changes will soon cause producers to outspend their revenue streams. These losses will also exercise the type of change that is needed within the producer firm and the oil and gas industry. Producers therefore need to choose to ride these forces or continue to resist them. Either way that these changes are made, People, Ideas & Objects will provide the systems and applications that provide the innovative oil and gas producer with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations.

Our claim to be the most profitable means of oil and gas operations is a bold statement. And we assert that this is provided through our value proposition and the enhanced division of labor the software will identify and support. By allocating the one time development costs across the producer base, the costs of software development will fall to a small percentage of what firms have traditionally paid for ERP systems.

With respect to the second component of our claim to being the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. For any industry to increase its economic output demands that an enhanced division of labor be used. This economic theory has been proven time and again over the last few hundred years. We now live in times where to expand on the current division of labor and specialization requires that advanced Information Technologies be employed to identify and support them. People, Ideas & Objects is configured to develop the software that will provide these to the producer firm. This is our fundamental competitive advantage.

McKinsey’s discussion on change is of the first type, or deliberate change an organization undertakes. Nonetheless it provides us with some valuable information regarding change in general.

Over the past 15 or so years, programs to improve corporate organizational performance have become increasingly common. Yet they are notoriously difficult to carry out. Success depends on persuading hundreds or thousands of groups and individuals to change the way they work, a transformation people will accept only if they can be persuaded to think differently about their jobs. In effect, CEOs must alter the mind-sets of their employees—no easy task.

People, Ideas & Objects have presented a workable vision of how the innovative oil and gas producer would operate. This vision is represented in the Draft Specification. People can then see the effect of working in that environment and adjust their actions to fulfill that vision and enable the innovative oil and gas producer.

But what if the only way a business can reach its higher performance goals is to change the way its people behave across the board? Suppose that it can become more competitive only by changing its culture fundamentally—from being reactive to proactive, hierarchical to collegial, or introspective to externally focused, for instance. Since the collective culture of an organization, strictly speaking, is an aggregate of what is common to all of its group and individual mind-sets, such a transformation entails changing the minds of hundreds or thousands of people. This is the third and deepest level: cultural change.

With the benefits of people having this vision in mind. And using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct of the innovative producer, people will be able to think differently about their work.

Employees will alter their mind-sets only if they see the point of the change and agree with it—at least enough to give it a try. The surrounding structures (reward and recognition systems, for example) must be in tune with the new behavior. Employees must have the skills to do what it requires. Finally, they must see people they respect modeling it actively. Each of these conditions is realized independently; together they add up to a way of changing the behavior of people in organizations by changing attitudes about what can and should happen at work.

In this next quote McKinsey note that cognitive dissonance will affect the people who believe in our purpose. I can only suggest that those people begin the process of joining People, Ideas & Objects or the Community of Independent Service Providers.

The implication of this finding for an organization is that if its people believe in its overall purpose, they will be happy to change their individual behavior to serve that purpose—indeed, they will suffer from cognitive dissonance if they don’t. But to feel comfortable about change and to carry it out with enthusiasm, people must understand the role of their actions in the unfolding drama of the company’s fortunes and believe that it is worthwhile for them to play a part. It isn’t enough to tell employees that they will have to do things differently. Anyone leading a major change program must take the time to think through its "story"—what makes it worth undertaking—and to explain that story to all of the people involved in making change happen, so that their contributions make sense to them as individuals.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Call-to-action Change Management Leadership Vision

McKinsey, When Failure is not an Option

McKinsey Consulting are publishing a three part series on what they describe as the Joint Venture (JV). Entitled “When Failure is not an Option: Making Joint Ventures work for capital projects.” The article notes the role of JV’s in oil and gas and other industries, JV’s are of course one in the same as the Joint Operating Committee (JOC), the key organizational construct of People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification.

This paper provides further support for the development of the Preliminary Specification and the research that has been conducted by People, Ideas & Objects. It is satisfying that the worlds number one consulting firm are publishing these types of articles. Prospective users and  members of the Community of Independent Service Providers need to see this type of support to ensure their efforts are put towards providing success for the innovative oil and gas producer.

Joint Operating Committees are initiated for a variety of reasons, to reduce capital risk, to include other producers throughout the aerial extent of the property, or to include needed resources and capabilities. Industry has established a culture around using the Joint Operating Committee that is reflected in many of the processes that are used. This culture has developed as a result of the Joint Ventures that are systemic throughout the industry. Whether it’s through agreement, the Operating or Accounting Procedure, partnerships are what the Joint Operating Committee was designed to reflect. McKinsey states;

Historically, project developers have relied on the operating versus non-operating partner construct. However, companies are also increasingly leveraging JV constructs as a way to bring broader expertise into the project, build local talent and industries and retain sovereign ownership. In the oil and gas industry for example, a major project is likely to include a “supermajor” international oil company (for whom this project is part of a very large portfolio), an independent (who may be betting the company on this project), a passive investor (with a purely financial focus), and a national oil company (owned by the government where the project takes place). 

The Draft Specification has specific attributes that resonate with this perspective. First there is the enhanced participation enabled by the Partnership Accounting module. This module deals with the various ways in which partners may contribute to the Joint Operating Committee. Noting in the quotations example the passive investor, national oil company and international oil company each have differing costs and contributions. Permitting each of the firms to contribute fully, in their own unique way, to the successful development of the project. Secondly, the participants that are noted in the McKinsey quote, independents, start ups, international and national oil companies, are the targeted market for the People, Ideas & Objects software applications. Having each of the partners within a JOC with the same software development capability is a necessity, and the key deliverable of People, Ideas & Objects.

Noting the need for change, McKinsey details what is required for these organizations to deal with the enhanced participation enabled by the Partnership Accounting and other modules of the Draft Specification.

On top of the massive scale and obvious technical complexity, these new, multi-operator constructs

• increasingly embody multi-cultural perspectives (both corporate and sovereign),
• frequently represent divergent strategic priorities for the individual owners,
• generally struggle with the governance and performance management challenges associated with any multi-parent structure and
• often lack a single point of accountability for key decisions.

Addressing each of these points has been the topic of discussion in our Review. Having differing types of participants and cultural influences within the Joint Operating Committee is becoming commonplace. We had determined that each participant could pursue their own unique strategy within the property. We developed the Military Command & Control Metaphor to deal with the governance and performance management challenges. And lastly addressed the accountability for the decisions that are made within the JOC and the producer firm. Most importantly, the Draft and Preliminary Specifications are developed to address and resolve these very issues.

Next, consider that the “new generation” of project JV has multiple layers, as both the owners and contractor teams rely on individual partnerships to deliver the project. As this phenomenon evolves, it should be no surprise that we see an explosion of risk and management complexity, given the sheer number of stakeholders involved and the more sophisticated tools and processes needed to deal with project intricacies.

In the Resource Marketplace module of the Draft Specification we have included the service industry as critical elements of the success of the innovative producer. McKinsey are right to suggest the level of risk and complexity will increase further as a result of having the need to develop the support industries. Innovation at the producer level needs the service industries to be intimately involved in developing the products and services the producer demands.

Studies show that about 50 percent of all JVs do not succeed. Moreover, studies of large capital projects indicate that cost overruns from 50 to over 100 percent are common. So, when we consider this double-barreled risk of often-unsuccessful JVs managing often- unsuccessful mega-projects, we recognize that the difficulty project JVs have in aligning and operating effectively is a major reason why large capital projects often fail. Given the strategic importance these projects represent to participating partners, it is clear that JV organizations must be effective if a project is to meet expectations for predictability and performance.

There we have it, the world’s number one consulting firm clearly stating that joint ventures fail due to the difficulty in aligning and operating effectively. People, Ideas & Objects, its prospective users, the Community of Independent Service Providers through the Draft Specification are moving the compliance and governance frameworks of the hierarchy into alignment with the cultural, legal, financial, operational decision making and communication frameworks of the Joint Operating Committee. Laying the groundwork for the producers involved in the JOC to be successful. McKinsey quote a Harvard Business Review article that reflects these elements are necessary at the commencement of the JOC.

In their seminal article in the Harvard Business Review, Banford, Ernst and Fubini suggest four areas on which to concentrate the early planning and launch of any JV:

1. Strategic alignment. This ensures that each partner’s disparate goals, priorities and business models are recognized and reconciled.
2. A “loose-tight” governance model. This ensures that each partner’s needs for accountability and control are met, while at the same time, the project’s need for independence and authority is also respected.
3. The economic interdependencies between the project JV and each partner. They will impact the extent and means by which human, technical, and other resources are invested in the project.
4. Building the project organization. The parent organization should contribute their best people to the considerable challenges a major project presents, overcoming the frequent perception that such assignments are not always the best path to promotion.

For the industry to successfully provide for the consumers energy demands, it’s necessary to build the systems that identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. Building the Preliminary Specification is the focus of People, Ideas & Objects. Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to support our Revenue Model and begin their participation in these communities. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here and begin building the software necessary for the successful and innovative oil and gas industry.

Technorati Tags: People's McKinsey Review Accountability Call-to-action

IBM's Global CEO Survey

IBM has published their bi-annual Global CEO Study. Registration is required to download the .pdf, I recommend reviewing the document to gain an understanding of the state of affairs in the global CEO’s mindset.

Oil and gas producers are faced with a difficult situation. As the earth science and engineering disciplines expand. And the volume of technical effort needed for each barrel of oil increases. The scientific human resources available to the producers remains relatively constant. What’s needed is a new division of labor and specialization to increase the volume of throughput of these fixed human resources. This changing environment is, according to the IBM study, being joined with a new variable, complexity.

Using the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer becomes a necessity in this complex environment. The JOC being the legal, financial, cultural, communication and operational decision making framework of the industry can deal with this enhanced complexity. When we are required to work with the needs of multiple producers within each and every JOC. Continuing to use generic ERP systems that don’t identify and support the JOC. Introduces unneeded complexity to an already difficult environment. If industry is to meet the market demands for energy, the Joint Operating Committee will need to be supported and identified by the ERP systems that are defined in the Draft Specification. The IBM Study notes.

In our past three global CEO studies, CEOs consistently said that coping with change was their most pressing challenge. In 2010, our conversations identified a new primary challenge: complexity. CEOs told us they operate in a world that is substantially more volatile, uncertain and complex. Many shared the view that incremental changes are no longer sufficient in a world that is operating in fundamentally different ways. Four primary findings arose from our conversations:

The first of these four findings is complexity and the capacity to deal with that it. IBM’s survey seems remarkably candid about the CEO’s capacity to deal with this new complexity.

Today’s complexity is only expected to rise, and more than half of CEOs doubt their ability to manage it.

Innovation will become the means for value creation in the oil and gas industry. Innovating on the basis of the expanding earth science and engineering disciplines. The industries leadership will be derived from those that are able to operate creatively in this scientific and technical environment.

Creativity is the most important leadership quality, according to CEOs. Standouts practice and encourage experimentation and innovation throughout their organizations. Creative leaders expect to make deeper business model changes to realize their strategies. To succeed, they take more calculated risks, find new ideas, and keep innovating in how they lead and communicate.

Third in the IBM study focuses on the customer, the Draft Specification will enable, closer interactions between the producers, vendors, suppliers and communities involved in the industry. IBM’s survey notes the focus of CEO’s is more towards the customer. Oil and gas producers never see their customers however, an expanded capability to deal with those involved in the business of oil and gas is needed.

The most successful organizations co-create products and services with customers, and integrate customers into core processes. They are adopting new channels to engage and stay in tune with customers. By drawing more insight from the available data, successful CEOs make customer intimacy their number-one priority.

In the fourth finding, IBM focuses on the interactions between partners and suppliers.

Better performers manage complexity on behalf of their organizations, customers and partners. operations and products, and increasing dexterity to change the way they work, access resources and enter markets around the world.

These four conclusions are consistent with the needs of the innovative oil and gas producers. IBM has developed a strong capability in their bi-annual study of CEO’s. I can only assume that personally interviewing 1,500 CEO’s is done at substantial expense. I would question the value that IBM is able to generate from this survey. This paper was published in May 2010 and the volume of discussion that it has generated must be disappointing. I wonder if there will be another report in two years time.

Producers are encouraged to contact me in order to begin their participation in these communities and support our Revenue Model. Those individuals that are interested in joining People, Ideas & Objects can join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Change Call-to-action Science Engineering

S + B's Big Oil's Big Shift

We have today a remarkable article from Booz & Co’s “Strategy + Business” (S + B). Prospective users of People, Ideas & Objects software applications and members of the Community of Independent Service Providers need to see that the work that they can do at People, Ideas & Object is topical, and hence valuable. This S + B article entitled “Big Oil’s Big Shift” provides an understanding of some of the issues in oil and gas. Many of the points in the article are specifically addressed in the Draft Specification. Although S + B considers the majority of these issues arise as a result of the BP Gulf of Mexico spill, to many, these issues were evident irrespective of the spill.

The targeted market for the People, Ideas & Objects software applications is the entire oil and gas industry. This definition includes start up oil and gas companies, independents, International Oil Companies (IOC’s) and National Oil Companies (NOC’s). All of these firms use the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) systemically throughout their organizations.

Risk has always been inherent in the extraordinarily complex projects that extract oil from the ground or sea. During the past few years, industry trends have added to this risk. The most accessible and productive oil fields, including those in the Middle East and Russia, are now owned and operated solely by national oil companies (NOCs). Leading international oil companies (IOCs) such as BP, ExxonMobil, and Shell — also known as the oil majors — therefore find their access to “easy” reserves rapidly shrinking.

For the reasons noted in the above quotation, People, Ideas & Objects believes the four classes of producers will partner to approach the remaining technically difficult and demanding reserves. Therefore it is imperative that these JOC’s and partnerships are able to deal with any combination of producer classes, in as many geographical areas as necessary. Access to an ERP system that can identify and support these different producers business operations is therefore a necessity.

Supporting the interactions between producers within a JOC is only the beginning. The ability to work closely with the service industries is also a necessity. The Draft Specifications Resource Marketplace module provides the ability for the producers represented in the JOC to deal more closely with service providers in the service industries, communities and contractors. The Draft Specification also provides a new governance model to facilitate these interactions through the Military Command & Control Metaphor. S + B states:

But the oil majors will have to manage their contractors differently, working more closely in teams with business partners that earn their trust over a long period of time, and in some cases taking stakes in third-party providers to better control their performance. This partnership model must be built on interdependence and mutual respect — a significant change from long- standing practices in some parts of the sector. The oil majors will also need to revise their operating models, sorting out a different mix of activities to outsource, and bringing some of the most critical oversight functions back in-house — so they can address quality issues and place employees on the front line to better oversee the growing situational risk in oil drilling.

To make this possible requires management to fall on their sword. As I have noted in each of this blogs recent closings, management are conflicted, and the executives at the producer firms need to make the decisions to financially support these developments.

Perhaps the biggest uncertainty in this new and challenging business environment is the ability of the major oil companies to change as conditions shift measurably. Most large oil companies — including both international oil majors and state-owned NOCs — have rigid management cultures and adversarial, penny- pinching relationships with suppliers and partners. Historically, they have tended to focus on short-term cost cutting without sufficient consideration for collaborative operations that could benefit themselves and their partners.

Lastly, S + B notes that the time for these changes to become effective is now. Prospective users and members of the Community of Independent Service Providers will be the ones at the forefront of these changes.

Many people in the oil industry have foreseen these types of changes, but they haven’t been forced to act. Now they will be. Those who figure out how to move beyond their past practices, troubled contractor relationships, and rigid management structures will lead the next generation in the oil sector — on land, in shallow waters, and in deep and remote locations. The time for these changes could come surprisingly soon. 

Society is put in peril when world oil production declines. There is evidence that the world's oil production has declined. Therefore the world needs to have the energy industry expand its production. To do so requires that we reorganize to enhance the division of labor and specialization within the industry. As economic development has proven, reorganization would achieve far greater oil and gas production. Management of the industry is conflicted in expanding the output of the industry. The less they do, the higher the oil and gas prices and the better they appear to perform. This managerial conflict must be addressed and the performance of the industry unleashed. To do so requires the current management of the industry to fund People, Ideas & Objects and build the systems as defined in the Draft Specification. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Phase-Two Call-to-action Governance Military-Command

Royalty Policies & Procedures

In 1992 the Alberta Legislature enacted "Royalty Simplification". Conceived as a benefit for industry and the administration to reduce the burden in calculating and filing gas royalties. This initiative was to be achievable through a heavy reliance on Information Technology. A significant and ambitious program that promised greater ease for both government and industry. It's now almost eighteen years since that legislation was passed, how have things gone? The only conclusion that you could come to is; why would industry ever want to develop an accurate system in determining and remitting royalties? Is accuracy of royalty payments within their business interests?

Apparently not. To date nothing tangible has been built by any producer or software vendor and no plans currently exist to build a system. Within People, Ideas & Objects there is no calculation of royalties included in the Draft Specification. There is a place in the Joint Account to record the royalties that are due, but it will have no basis in fact or necessarily be in compliance with the regulations supporting those royalty assessments. It's an all-or-nothing proposition in terms of making the correct calculations. Therefore in today's marketplace the burden has fallen to the Alberta Government to assess invoices to the producers based on what they believe to be volumetric variances.

In 2009 Alberta's Auditor General reported the amount of royalty deficiencies may be upward of a quarter billion dollars. To be honest he really didn't know! What is known is that the industry will not spend a penny on royalty compliance software. Therefore why would People, Ideas & Objects expend producers money to meet the Alberta or any other jurisdictions royalty calculation? Who's responsibility is to ensure compliance and accuracy? Although it was conceived as a self assessing system, the governments ability to assess invoices for deemed deficiencies alleviates the producers of the responsibility to accurately calculate the royalty obligation.

In 1997 the Alberta government held a meeting with the software developers and asked why there was no usable software in the market. It was suggested that to build royalty based compliant system it would cost $40 million per software vendor. Where would this money come from? No investor or producer is willing to pay that cost. And therefore that is where we stand.

Unless Alberta, Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Mexico, Texas, Louisiana, Libya, Saudi Arabia, Petronas and others want to fund the systems development costs of royalty compliance, People, Ideas & Objects would not use any producer funds to build a system that is the responsibility of the royalty holder. In Alberta that is the provincial government and they have over $10 billion in annual royalty income, it is therefore their responsibility to ensure that they are collecting the right amount from the producers.

Whether the Alberta government would fund the costs of developing royalty compliance in People, Ideas & Objects is unknown. If the Auditor General has a perceived shortfall, that is the government's problem. How much an individual producer is overpaying could also be unnecessarily high. Royalties like taxes, have opportunities and issues with how the royalties are calculated. Those producers that are able to approach their royalty strategy aggressively have a substantial benefit in lower royalties and as a result, higher margins then other producers.

People, Ideas & Objects would like to build a fully compliant and accurate royalty system for all the jurisdictions in the world. Software, as we see in this discussion, is a small portion of the entire picture. The Community of Independent Service Providers is where the tacit knowledge exists in calculating accurate and fair royalty obligations. They are the ones that can employ the aggressive strategies on behalf of their producer clients, using the People, Ideas & Objects prospective Royalty Modules for the calculations. Software that is funded by the Alberta Government and verified to be accurate by Alberta's Auditor General.

If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties for oil and gas, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please email me. And if your a potential user of this software, and possibly as a member of the Community of Independent Service Providers, please join us here.

Technorati Tags: People's Call-to-Action Accountability Leadership Policies
 

And that would make eight.

In summarizing the eight compelling reasons for getting involved in this project.

The first compelling reason is, oil and gas has moved into a more complex and difficult environment(s). Technically, financially, politically and logistically to name just a few. These environments require producers to make more decisions, and the companies can not keep up. Review a firms Reserve Life Index and you will see the extent of this problem. Exxon has valued this increased complexity at an increment of $1 trillion more in capital expenditures per year over the next 20 years. Let be me clear, I want Exxon to fully participate in these developments.

The second is the response of the ERP vendors. There is a storied history between SAP and the industry & Oracle and the industry. Not a lot of love there. Such that, any opportunity to address the above point, People, Ideas & Objects, thankfully for the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP), is the only solution. If the others can't see the problem, then they'll only waste money in building a solution. Oh wait, Oracle has already spent $39 billion in research and acquisition costs in bringing Oracle Fusion to market. If you want your company to be the one that keeps Oracle's return on investment positive, I wish you the best.

Third, much of People, Ideas & Objects extensive research that went into the Draft Specification was based on Professor's Williamson's, Langlois' and Baldwin's research in Transaction Cost Economics. This critical area of research earned Professor Oliver Williamson the 2009 Nobel Prize in Economics. Showing that the Draft Specification has a basis in strong academic research. This grounding in leading edge research is the foundation of which the users and CISP will use to design the Preliminary Specification.

Fourth, since the economy did not tank and we can build on what remains. Academics have turned to organizations, technology and innovation as their key areas of research. This will have substantial benefits to the user community and Community of Independent Service Providers involved in People, Ideas & Objects software applications.

These compelling reasons are being marketed to the investors and shareholders of the producer firms. They are the ones that are being called upon to fund, or direct their oil and gas companies to fund, our 2010 $10 million budget for the beginnings of the Preliminary Specification. The user community needs to see the commitment of the producers to begin to step up in this difficult and opportune time. I also expect Shell, BP, Chevron, Total, Devon, Chesapeake, Saudi-Aramco, Pemex, and Petronas, to name just a few, to contribute to the 2010 budget and the future requirements. They can't play in the game if they don't pay the fee to get into the ball park. That is to say, the benefits to producers is getting involved early and often. Making organizational change requires that the software gets built first, otherwise the existing sophistication in terms of division of labor, the complexity and capability of the markets will be lost. Not everyone will be able to join us, I expect the laggards are too busy with their problems, which will only lead to their unfortunate demise.

A sixth point is the compelling value proposition provided to the user community and the producers themselves in this software development project.

Seventh, I recently had the opportunity to detail a gaping whole in the Draft Specification, the User Vision. I am pleased that I can forcefully put these points across and not be belittled by managements perception that it's a toy. Professor Orlikowski's research came at an opportune time to build real value to this project and fill out our previously un-spoken user-vision of the People, Ideas & Objects application modules.

I recently noted two new papers from Professor Carlota Perez are to be reviewed in the very near future. What is stated in those papers is that the real value of the Information Technology Revolution is about to begin in earnest. This trend is expected to continue for the next 20 years and provide a ground floor business opportunity for our CISP, and, subscribing producers.

If your a producer that wants to benefit from these developments, and support the team financially, please review our Funding Policies & Procedures. Or your a user that wants to contribute to these developments, please join us here.

Technorati Tags: People's Leadership Call-to-Action Change
 

Academics get on board.

A trend is forming in the academic community. There are no shortage of papers that address the types of opportunities that now exist in the technological, organizational and innovation areas of academic research. This is an extremely strong trend, one that is a follow-on to the massive effort that went into determining the causes and effects of the financial crisis. As we move away from the possibility of a meltdown, we can see the resources of the academic community moving forward in terms of where business should position itself to succeed in the future.

It started for People, Ideas & Objects with Professors Baldwin and von Hipple's paper. We took a detailed and comprehensive review of the paper due to its pertinence and value to the Community of Independent Service Providers and the producers that support People, Ideas & Objects. That review will soon be joined by one from Professor Giovanni Dosi entitled "On the nature of technologies: knowledge, procedures, artifacts and production inputs". Professor Dosi's work was the key or primary research component contained in the Preliminary Research Report. His work helped to define what an innovative oil and gas producer would need, and that the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) is indeed the means to achieve that innovativeness. This new paper resonates with the work that is being done here. I will be reviewing all these papers in this blog as soon as I can get to them.

An additional paper from Professors Wanda Orlikowski of MIT permits me to write about something that I was too reserved to write about. This paper will add a layer, or dimension, to our software developments that ties together many of the questions users have. Professor Orlikowski's work was used in the Preliminary Research Report as well. Her work had defined the Technological Model of Structuration based on Professor Anthony Giddens Structuration Theory. It was through this work we were able to define the cognitive and motivational paradox' of building these software modules. Her Model of Structuration was also used to determine that software defines the organization. Therefore to change the organization requires that we first change the software. Which led me to coin the phrase "SAP is the bureaucracy".

We also have two very good papers from Professor Carlota Perez of Cambridge University. She has been able to define for People, Ideas & Objects the economic environment we find ourselves in. Basing her theories on the research of economic events over the last 300 years. This has provided us with an understanding that the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) are creating significant economic changes. These changes are reflected in the dot com bubble and our recent financial driven bubbles. And now that these "events" have occurred, as she predicted, we can see the context of the current ICT Revolution is ready to be exploited. Recall what Ludwig von Mises said about the industry revolution. It was the solution to the problems at that time. We find ourselves in similarly challenged times and the ICT Revolution is the solution to those problems.

All of these works from Hagel, Baldwin, von Hipple, Dosi, Orlikowski, Perez and others show the time for the oil and gas industry to undertake the types of revisions prescribed by People, Ideas & Objects is now. It is important to highlight this development in this posting. People who contribute their time and energy to the developments of People, Ideas & Objects are compensated handsomely for their contributions. It is however not enough to start these developments until we can assure the producers and users that this project will be successful. That the people behind this development are taking the steps necessary to ensure success and that the super human effort of going beyond what is expected can be undertaken by every individual who participates. The point of this post to highlight some of the areas that we can show the producers and users that this success is closer to being attained. What we have so far is as follows:

1)    There is general and widespread understanding that the oil and gas industry has entered an era where the cheap energy is gone. What remains is politically, logistically, financially and technically much more difficult. An exponentially higher level of difficulty. It has been noted by Exxon and others this will require upwards of $20 trillion additional capital over the next 20 years.

2)    Professor Oliver Williamson's Nobel Prize in Economics being awarded for Transaction Cost Economics (TCE). This was a surprise event in that this relatively obscure area of the science. TCE has now been recognized for its importance on a go forward basis. Most importantly the Draft Specification incorporates the state of the art understanding of Transaction Cost Economics.

3)    Our competition, Oracle and SAP have used and abused the oil and gas industry for too long. Neither have products that are satisfactory for the upstream oil and gas industry. Importantly Oracle has taken themselves out of the game by spending $39 in research and acquisition costs to bring Oracle Fusion to the world. This level of capital expenditure will price Oracle out of most of the markets they operate in. In addition, the oil and gas industry will need to spend at least as much in customized development costs as People, Ideas & Objects blank slate approach would.

4)    The oil and gas producers are being called to fund our budget for 2010. At $10 million this is the amount of money that I think we can physically spend. It is being applied to the Preliminary Specification based on the Draft Specification and the agile development methodology. This is not to suggest that the entire design will be complete with this budget. It would be fool hardy to suggest that this project will be undertaken on the basis of $10 million in design costs. I hope that we will be able to develop the first iteration of the Draft, Preliminary, Detailed and Final Specification's within the scope of a $100 million commitment. People, Ideas & Objects Users, Developers, Account Managers and Project Managers all need to see the oil and gas industry commit these resources for this design. Success demands this.

5)    The academic community, through independent actions of the noted leadership in their disciplines, highlight this area as a key area of value accretion to all businesses. People need to be seeing the academic community rallying around these concepts. Providing help for our users and producers to foresee how success can be attained. I would also suggest that the academic community is raising a serious warning to those producers who do not heed this call. It has been convenient for the bureaucrats to belittle People, Ideas & Objects, they may now be doing so at their own expense.

Here are the five compelling reasons that users and producers should get behind in this project. What is possible and attainable in People, Ideas & Objects has never been done before. For this reason the up-front analysis and work to ensure this project is successful is necessary. We are very close to that point, and the people want to move-on from just thinking and reading about it. If you are a producer that wants to support this project, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures. If you are user that would like to join us, please follow this procedure.

Technorati Tags: People's Baldwin von-Hipple Dosi Hagal Perez Orlikowski Change Call-to-Action Innovation Organization
 

A revolution is at hand.

Times have changed. There is a strong and supportive attitude toward our armed forces. When the challenges to our peace and freedom are weak we don't seem to have an adequate respect for the military. It's times like these when we are at war and the war is everywhere, we see the military in a different light. I for one am glad that we have stood for freedom and peace for as long as we have. Those that wish to diminish our freedoms should think twice.

On Monday the Boston Globe published a photo series called the big picture, I highly recommend you subscribe. On Monday they did a series of photos of "Kazakhstan's radioactive legacy". The images are graphic and are amongst the most difficult to view. These are the product of a country that takes people's freedoms and peace for granted. Thank you to our military.

With the twentieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall, Christopher Hitchens, one of my favorite authors. Noted in this weeks Slate article ,

Lenin once defined a revolutionary situation as one that occurred when the rulers could not go on in the traditional way and the ruled did not wish to continue in that old way. Engels was more metaphorical, saying that revolution was the midwife that delivered a new life out of an older body.

Not to suggest that we are in revolutionary times, but the information revolution has been speculated to mimic the industrial revolution. So in light of these, how does People, Ideas & Objects bring about these changes. Hitchen's notes;

Throughout the 1980s, democratic insurgencies in the Philippines and South Korea, as well as the long resistance of the anti-apartheid forces in South Africa, showed that when the ruled do not want to go on in the old way, all they really need do is to fold their arms.

It's time for the management to cease, fold their arms, and join us here .

Technorati Tags: People's Change Call-to-Action
 

And there's more.

The energy industry does have a problem that is reflected well in today's $81 oil price. The purpose of this blog is to organize and develop the software modules in the Draft Specification. Why we are doing this is that the bureaucracy is constrained and is unable to meet the demands of the consumers in the 21st century. Without abundant energy the world economy will be in jeopardy, as will our way of life.

John B. Hess is the CEO of Hess Corporation, a second generation exploration and production oil and gas company. With a market value of $20 billion they have become one of the U.S.' great independent producers. It's reasonable then to assume that Hess knows what he is talking about. And he does.

In a major statement entitled "Oil and the Future", Hess has released a paper that discusses the energy industries looming supply side crisis. The problem is well defined in this paper. What we need to do is organize ourselves to face this challenge. Without the software that supports and defines the Joint Operating Committee (JOC) we will not be able to rise to this challenge.

Hess goes on to provide sound advice to deal with this problem. His recommendations are the three C's Communication, Courage and Collaboration. The following quotations capture the scope of the problem.

My remarks today will cover “Oil and the Future.” Today, our industry is at a crossroads. Oil has moved to a demand-led market where supply is struggling to keep pace. The financial crisis of the past year has reduced demand by 2 million barrels per day, creating excess inventories and lower prices. While this setback has brought us some welcome breathing room, I believe that it is only temporary. Once economic growth recovers, it is likely we will return to the market conditions of one year ago. The price of $140 per barrel oil was not an aberration; it was a warning.

A warning, indicating that there is time remaining. Our approach should be to get organized first. And for innovative oil and gas producers in the 21st century, getting organized means building the software to define and support the Joint Operating Committee.

Over the past several years, many people in our business have expressed confidence that we were up to meeting the challenges ahead. From the producer perspective, it has been suggested that the remaining global endowment of up to 3 trillion barrels of recoverable oil meant that we should not be concerned with a prospect of shortages. Higher prices, advancing technology and sound government policies would enable supply to keep up with demand. Consuming nations viewed these issues quite differently, criticizing producers for rising prices, blaming oil for climate change and implementing policies to develop alternatives to hydrocarbons. I would suggest there is a major disconnect between consumers and producers.

In this next quotation, Hess defines a break between what the producers see and what they act upon. It's a break that I find interesting in dealing with this problem. Each producer firm is only concerned with their production and do not necessarily see the broader picture. Looking at the horizon they see that such and such heavy oil project and these offshore resources will offset any declines experienced by any of the other producers. In other words the horizon is muddled by too much information.

The approaches of both consumers and producers are based on hope, but what we need is a sober reality. The reality is that an oil crisis is coming that could prove devastating to future economic growth. Given the long lead times of 5-to-10 years from oil discovery to production, we need to act now to avert this outcome. I would like to suggest a framework of three “C’s” to address this threat: communication, courage and collaboration.

All is not lost. Over the course of my career in the oil and gas industry, I have been shocked in terms of its performance. When called upon the industry has been able to deliver, and I would expect the same from this current call. Hess' message is to communicate the facts and eliminate the confusion around this issue.

Given these facts, we need to communicate the following message:

1. Hydrocarbons are here to stay.
2. Oil demand growth will be unrelenting, increasing 1 million barrels per day each year.
3. We are not running out of oil but growth of production capacity over the next several years will fall short of the incremental 5 million barrels per day each year that we will need to meet demand.
4. We will ultimately be at risk of supply rationing demand through skyrocketing prices that will threaten economic stability and prosperity. If we do not act now, we will have a devastating oil crisis in the next 5-to-10 years.

In reading the paper I came to the realization that this is an all interested persons must rise to this challenge. Consumers, International Oil Companies, National Oil Companies, Independent producers, OPEC, and consuming nations.

The stakes have never been higher. We must build a balanced and comprehensive approach to energy security and protection of the environment to ensure sustainable development. We must unite and work together as an industry, communicating one message, having the courage to act and collaborating for the global good. In this world, there will be a bright future, not only for oil, but for many generations to come.

We are a fair distance from resolving this. I have suggested that the ability to conduct appropriate exploration has been lost since the hey day's of the 1960's. Hess is quoted in this paper as stating "Resource additions from exploration last replaced annual production in 1987". We have a job to do, please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Call-to-Action Change Economics Energy

Where is IT heading

Apple announced its forth quarter earnings yesterday. I think these earnings show that the demand for IT systems is very strong. Strong growth in all product lines provides a confidence in the recovery of the economy. The global recession has certainly abated for Apple, but is there more to these financial results? Is there more that can be imputed about the general economic recovery?

We can thank Professor Carlota Perez for pointing us to the fact that the old economy was becoming progressively more inefficient. And that this inefficiency would lead to a decline in the engines that drive the economy. This fact is generally agreed to by most, and that change is in the air from an economic point of view. But more importantly is her highlighting the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), in providing the real value generation of the near future.

Perez stated simply the Information & Communication Technologies are the engine that will bring the world economy to an entire new level of performance. A level where the problems of today will pale in comparison to our opportunities. That we will experience an increase in general quality and standards of living. I like to think we are at a point in time that parallels the industrial revolution, which we are. But instead of mechanical leverage we are leveraging intellectual thought and ideas. An opportunity that will take us many decades of increasing productivity and quality of life.

The New York Times ran an article that speaks to these opportunities.

Much depends on how the nascent revival in the technology sector plays out. Computer hardware and software are building blocks of the modern economy, as basic as iron ore and coal were to the industrial era. Together, technology products represent about half of all business spending on equipment.

John T. Chambers, chief executive of Cisco, was even more bullish recently, predicting a substantial increase in productivity at American companies driven by investments in Internet software and hardware. “I think we are entering a period very similar to 1997 to 2004, where you’ll see a decade run of productivity increases,” he said in an interview.

And for the oil and gas industry that is what People, Ideas & Objects is about. The Users, Producers and Developers that are involved in this applications development. We'll be able to incorporate the never ending productivity initiatives into the software. Making the producer firms benefit by being the most profitable operations through the use of this software and Community of Independent Service Providers. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Call-to-Action Perez Change Economics

Nobel to Oliver Williamson

The Nobel Prize was awarded to Elinor Ostrom and Oliver Williamson this morning. I can't think of anything that puts the People, Ideas & Objects community inline with the current thinking of the economic community. I am elated. I am not aware of the work of Elinor Ostrom and I will look into her work to see if it applies as directly as Professor Williamson's does. I have two blog posts on Oliver Williamson's work and the one paper I reviewed "Introduction to Transaction Cost Economics" which provided strong grounding for the Draft Specification. I also have 7 other papers of his sitting in the hopper waiting to be reviewed. I'll certainly bump these up in terms of priority as to when I will approach them.

Noteworthy among today's accolades are the following.

From CATO

Both Ostrom’s work on governance institutions and common-pool resources and Williamson’s work on governance institutions and the transactional boundary of the firm contribute meaningfully to our understanding of how individuals coordinate their plans and actions in decentralized, complex systems.

From The Wall Street Journal

“According to Williamson’s theory, large private corporations exist primarily because they are efficient. They are established because they make owners, workers, suppliers, and customers better off than they would be under alternative institutional arrangements. When corporations fail to deliver efficiency gains, their existence will be called in question,” according to information on the research released by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. “Large corporations may of course abuse their power. They may for instance participate in undesirable political lobbying and exhibit anti-competitive behavior. However, according to Williamson’s analysis, it is advisable to regulate such behavior directly rather than through policies that limit the size of corporations.”

and

Ostrom’s work also has something to say about regulation: “The main lesson is that common property is often managed on the basis of rules and procedures that have evolved over long periods of time. As a result they are more adequate and subtle than outsiders — both politicians and social scientists — have tended to realize. Beyond showing that self-governance can be feasible and successful, Ostrom also elucidates the key features of successful governance. One instance is that active participation of users in creating and enforcing rules appears to be essential. Rules that are imposed from the outside or unilaterally dictated by powerful insiders have less legitimacy and are more likely to be violated. Likewise, monitoring and enforcement work better when conducted by insiders than by outsiders. These principles are in stark contrast to the common view that monitoring and sanctioning are the responsibility of the state and should be conducted by public employees.”

From the Calgary Herald

"Since we have found that bureaucrats sometimes do not have the correct information while citizens and users of resources do, we hope it helps encourage a sense of capacity and power," the professor told a news conference via telephone.

and this quote that takes People, Ideas & Objects to the mainstream and away from the "fringe".

"Over the last three decades, these seminal contributions have advanced economic governance research from the fringe to the forefront of scientific attention," it said in a statement.

and

"Are there relationships between the Fed and the banking sector, on which it has such a significant influence, that haven't been thought through as fully as they might in organizational terms?" he asked.

Much of their theories were used to prove the Joint Operating Committee is the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer. Specifically noting that the natural "boundary of firm and market" is best represented in the JOC being the market. I'm dissapointed that I was only able to review one of Williamson's papers. My favorie quote from his paper is as follows.

Ronald Coase's 1937 paper on "The Nature of the Firm"expressly confronted an embarrassing lapse: whereas the distributing of activity between firm and market had been taken as given by economists, the boundary of the firm should be derived from the application of economic reasoning to the make-or-buy decision. pp. 15 - 16

Please join me here in this worthwhile, and now "mainstream" project.

Technorati Tags: People's Williamson Firm Market Research Economics Call-to-Action

Pushing the Envelope

A lot of change is considered in the Draft Specification. Much of it difficult to assume is correct. What has been researched, and is represented in this blogs 700,000+ words, hangs together in its entirety. In other words it works on paper.

It can be frightening to view the Draft Specification and its impact in oil and gas. I know that people are ready and willing to change. The demand for change being driven by the difficulties in the economy. The escalating oil and gas prices and the financial crisis provides the realization that the old ways need to be looked at. People are looking at this point in time; from the point of view that the old ways are not providing the value we need.

How the future unfolds will not be by happen stance, in my opinion. In other industries some products are assembled in many different countries. They have components and parts that contact dozens of different countries. Organization is more by design then by chance. If, as I believe is happening, the large bureaucracies are unable to continue building value, their difficulties and decline will soon become obvious. That being so, what replaces the ways and means of the oil and gas industry from an organizational point of view.

The point I'm trying to make is that the ways and means of the oil and gas industry will not happen on their own. We need to take what proven ideas we have and start building them to ensure the transition from the old ways, the bureaucracies, is not interrupted to the new, the Draft Specification.

Looking at this problem another way, Exxon Mobil employs hundreds of thousands of people around the world. What do these people do, where do they do it and how do they do their jobs? In many ways we have lost the ability to know what our organizations do. And, if they are failing what does that mean. Can the world afford a decline in energy output? Or do we have an obligation to do something to ensure that there is a transition.

If the bureaucracies have taken the division of labor and specialization to the point where Exxon Mobil employs hundreds of thousands. What will the future need in terms of the division of labor of future organizations. To grow 90 million barrels of oil per day requires innovative, faster organizations. We think we know we can't get their with our current organizations, but we can certainly go backwards into what I will leave to your own imaginations. The choices we make today are therefore critical in making our future.

How this is done is through the people that are a critical part of this industry. Their ideas to make it better and the objects that make up the People, Ideas & Objects software. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: People's Call-to-Action Change Funding People Ideas Organization

Collaboration is a necessity.

The Oil and Gas Journal have a comment from Mohammed Al-Qahtani, Executive Director, Petroleum Engineering and Development, of Saudi Aramco. He stated simply,

Recovering the world’s remaining oil resources will require a collaborative effort of national oil companies, international oil companies, and service companies.

This quote resonates with a number of assumptions that went into the Draft Specification. How the service industry and the producer companies are able to work closely in this most difficult of tasks. The Resource Marketplace Module is the collaborative medium in which the resource industry is able to market their offerings and contract with the producers that need them. Having an electronic marketplace that enables these connections, and facilitates the contracting is a necessity in my opinion.

The Research & Capabilities Module also provides the producer with a window on the work being done in the service industry. As I mention in that module, the producer receives 100% of the revenues from the sale of oil and gas. These financial resources need to be allocated to the service industry to conduct the research the producers will need in the long run. Funding these activities directly are what will be necessary for the producer and service providers to achieve what Mohammed Al-Qahtani also says in the article.

In addition, he noted that the world would need an additional 90 million b/d to offset declines in existing oil fields to reach a 125 million b/d level by 2030. Current world production is about 80 million b/d.

Finding 90 million b/d will be tough without the ability to collaborate in this manner. Another assumption that I have mentioned before is that the National Oil Companies will become active partners in making these plans real. Their nations reserves could best be developed in collaboration with producers from other nations. Much as Saudi Arabia has always done.

These assumption need to be incorporated in the systems that producers will use from now to 2030 and later. Systems built with the full involvement of its users. Please join me here.

Technorati Tags: Poeple's Collaboration Call-to-Action Innovation Leadership
 

A call to action.

John Hagel and John Seely Brown are two authors who's work I reviewed in the Preliminary Research Report. They have consistently shown the direction that business should be moving towards. Their message has been somewhat controversial due to the focus on technologies impact. With the luxury of time we can see they are in tune with the needs of business and have added value to those that listen.

Finding those that will listen may be the difficult part. I see their message being broadcast over the heads of management to the people who are in the know, that things are not working quite right anymore. In a blog post, John Hagel has itemized a call to action for those people to deal with the situation they are in. I think they are on message and add some value to those that will listen.

It's important to remember that this situation is unique in terms of it's point in history. We have reviewed Professor Carlota Perez work that says the economy today is the result of a long term trend that has shown a consistency in each of the five previous events over the past 300 years. The old is being replaced by the new. The new is being facilitated by the Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) which enable new ways of organizing.

Professor Perez has documented the changes that have happened in the prior 300 years. In addition to the industrial revolution we saw affordable and abundant steel impacting the strength and capacity of ships. How the canal system in Europe provided an increase in trade. All disrupting technologies that brought prosperity to the world.

This blog post of Hagel & Brown intimates the future is ready, waiting and looking for the people who are needed to take it too the next level. I recommend you review this post closely, and if your involved in the oil and gas industry, please join us here.

Technorati Tags: People's Call-to-Action Perez Hagel Brown Economics