BP, Transocean and Halliburton

In the May 2004 Preliminary Research Reports Abstract I wrote:

Oil and gas is entering a phase of complexity, risk and reward particularly in:

• The mature Western Sedimentary Basin.
• The Artic, a harsh and remote area.
• Heavy oil.
• Offshore operations, Pacific and Atlantic.

The scope of operations of an oil and gas concern is geographically, politically and scientifically diverse. The hierarchy limits the detail and focus to deal with the political and technical difficulties of each facility. Expecting an organization with the constraints to innovate is foolhardy.

The hierarchy has created "information overload", which in turn has created a paralysis in decision-making, directly affecting the capacity to change and or innovate. The hierarchy's bureaucratic, complex and conflicting lines of authority have muddled accountability. The ability to identify success / failure, to share those experiences, and to learn from them has diminished and is not progressing. Calgary, as a collective group of independent producers is discovering constraints to its ability to drill wells in the prairies. How can an industry with these constraints consider the complexities of the geopolitical, technical and operational concerns in the frontier areas of oil and gas.

The identification of this problem was not the purpose of the Preliminary Research Report. There was strong general consensus that the problem was correctly identified. What the Preliminary Research Report provided was the proof that by identifying and supporting the Joint Operating Committee, as the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producer, was the solution to this problem. Proving the JOC was the solution was the controversial aspect of the report, and the reason that management fought to have it eliminated from the marketplace. It conflicts with managements interests.

Management has had their turn and chose to do nothing regarding solving the identified and agreed to issues. Six years have past and they have contributed nothing to the development of these ideas. In a reasonable world one would assume at least some support. Based on our first quarter funding drive and the fact that management are now running around with their hair on fire, no funding will be forthcoming. Investors and shareholders must take this opportunity and seize the active management of the industry from the current bureaucracy. Or watch as their holdings are destroyed by the actions of BP and other producers.

Clearly they can't deal with today's complexity. And here, as reflected in this Wall Street Journal video of testimony by BP, Transocean and Halliburton, they cant even determine who's fault it is, comical.



What I wrote in 2004 was summarily rejected by management. They clearly had their own ideas. Those ideas have now failed and are on display to the rest of the world. Blaming management was what we were entitled to do then, it doesn't solve the problem and at some point managements failure will become obvious to the world. Then the shareholders and investors will be expected to have acted, therefore the time is now to fund People, Ideas & Objects.

Technorati Tags: People's Management Failure Ownership-Community
 

Perez, Crisis and Innovation Part V

In this next installment of our review of Professor Carlota Perez' paper "The financial crisis and the future of innovation: A view of technical change with the aid of history". She paints a clear picture of where we're headed in terms of economic performance. And the financial situation as it stands at People, Ideas & Objects and associated communities. I recall that Milton Friedman once stated; "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 politically inevitable."

People, Ideas & Objects have taken a good idea in using the Joint Operating Committee, developed it fully through application of academic research, and published a vision, the Draft Specification, of how the oil and gas industry could operate. When I look around for new ideas that might compete with People, Ideas & Objects I am unable to discover any. Since these are the only ideas that are being contemplated for the oil and gas industry I fully expect they will be taken-up by the industry. Otherwise, based on the financial crisis, our current debt crisis and the looming "capabilities crisis" in oil and gas, the industry will have to come up with its own ideas. The problem with doing so will be the time necessary to fully develop them and impart a vision in which people can rally around. This process took People, Ideas & Objects seven years to complete. We are at the point where the Draft Specification is almost two years old and the communities development has been undertaken since then. I don't believe the industry has the time to come up with its own ideas. They should therefore begin financially supporting People, Ideas & Objects and the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP).

THE POLICY CHALLENGES: Taking the paradigm and the period transition into account

Professor Friedman's message is the same message that Professor Perez echos in this section of her paper. The presence of the beginning of the deployment phase is an opportunity that is available to anyone in oil and gas who wants to participate. Now is the time and People, Ideas & Objects is the opportunity.

Institutional restructuring is what would really unleash a healthy period of prosperity, fundamentally different from that of bubble times. Whether and how such a redesign is done on the national and supranational levels, the likelihood of a successful outcome is much greater if the debate is on the table from early on and if enough concrete and viable proposals and innovative solutions are there when the decision makers are ready to act. p. 25

The Joint Operating Committee is the industry standard means of operating in the global oil and gas industry. The geographical scope of the People, Ideas & Objects application modules will be determined by the CISP in their initial analysis. Producer firms representing specific geographical areas of interest should insure their participation in the CISP and People, Ideas & Objects is substantial enough to influence the scope decisions are made with those regions included. Waiting is unproductive.

Waiting is also unproductive for those people who want to participate in the CISP. Generating a service based offering at this time in many people's life is counter to the dreams of many. Retiring and living off of one's investments is clearly not going to happen to the majority of those working in the oil and gas industry today. It's here that Professor Perez picks up an interesting and valid point of what needs to happen in the deployment phase.

The motto of ‘don’t work for money, let money work for you’, so popular in recent time, needs to sound completely unrealistic in a world where economic policies, be they regulatory, fiscal, monetary or whatever, resolutely favour working for money –and making abundant profits– through innovation, investment and job creation in the real economy. p. 25

Things have changed, and that is represented in the volumes of debt that countries, companies and individuals are carrying. This debt was accumulated because the old ways were no longer working and carrying the weight of the economy. To keep the illusion rolling along therefore required that money needed to be borrowed. These are all symptoms of how these changes require us to look at the future differently.

The safest way to approach the financing of innovation in the deployment period is to assume that the instruments that worked in the installation period [1970 - 2000] may now be inadequate. p. 29

This discussion maps out a rather robust future. But we are not there yet. As our 2010 budget drive proved, the management in oil and gas will not fund these communities and software developments. These service based offerings are not going to form until there are the necessary resources to make these alternatives real. The investor / shareholder in oil and gas is being asked to fund the development of these communities and software developments. So that they, the investor / shareholder will have the infrastructure necessary to replace the current management and operate their assets in the most profitable manner.

The opportunities for innovation are manifold, both in existing companies and for new ones, if the potential installed in the territory (and in the minds) by ICTs and their organisational paradigm finds a favourable financial and regulatory atmosphere in which to flourish. p. 29

Of the things that we do know is that oil and gas is unique unto itself. No other industry is configured in the same fashion. To proceed with building the industries infrastructure requires that software be built to identify and support the Joint Operating Committee. This is a given in the advanced economies that we find ourselves in.

But innovating within a paradigm is much easier and less risky than doing so using the paradigm in another sector. This was learned by the venture capitalists in the 1990s when they tried to apply the same criteria and expectations to innovators in biotech as to those in ICT; both sides ended up frustrated and disappointed. pp. 29 - 30

Professor Perez introduced her SKIEs in our previous post. These accurately reflect the CISP in this discussion, and it is the CISP, as a subset of the SKIEs, that require the funding necessary to develop. If it is not the oil and gas investor or shareholder that supports these communities development, then whom. The bureaucracies have had the opportunity for the past seven years and have chosen to do nothing. Now these bureaucracies are beginning to fail, leaving the oil and gas shareholder / investor being the one who loses.

A large set of innovative opportunities is in the area of small knowledge intensive enterprises (SKIEs), where the intangible nature of the products and of the human capital involved presents complex issues for the traditional methods of the financial system. p. 30

The remainder of our review of this paper will focus on the development issues of the CISP and SKIEs. Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are. If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and 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 Perez Innovation Management Funding Community CISP Economics Ownership-Community
 

Perez, Crisis and Innovation Part IV

What is particularly interesting about Professor Carlota Perez' new paper "The Financial Crisis and the Future of Innovation: A view of technical change with the aid of history." Is her description of Small Knowledge Intensive Enterprises (SKIEs). In almost all respects they are the same as People, Ideas & Objects Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP). This post introduces Perez' SKIEs and we will also discuss them more extensively in a future post.

Due to the escalating efforts in the earth science and engineering contained within each barrel of oil. People, Ideas & Objects suggest the bureaucracies are too constrained to maintain their reserves and production profiles over the long term. We see symptoms of these in Encana's $5.5 billion loss, Shell's escalating costs and BP's inability to control their well in the Gulf of Mexico. Why are these incidents happening? The demands for energy, and the scientific demands of energy are beyond the strategies and capabilities of the bureaucracies. Shell recently noted their reorganization, that took several years, was recently completed. So why then have they lost control of their costs?

People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification enables the producer firm to concentrate on the strategic needs of their asset base, at the Joint Operating Committee level, and their scientific and engineering capabilities. The producer firm is augmented by the marketplaces that support the innovative producer. The market includes the service industries and of particular interest to People, Ideas & Objects the Community of Independent Service Providers. These various communities are involved in providing many products and services that may have traditionally been done internally at the producer firm. This redrawing the boundaries of the firm is to enable the innovation in the earth science and engineering disciplines within the producer firm. And the communities to innovate in their area of expertise. Professor Perez notes;

A basic principle applied by corporations when disaggregating all their activities into separable components is distinguishing between core competences and complementary ones. The guiding idea is that the core competences are what gives the strength and the competitive edge as well as the long-term value to the company, while the other activities can in principle be outsourced without jeopardising the future. Yet, this notion of outsourcing is not about separating innovating activities from non-innovating ones. On the contrary, it is about deciding who will innovate in each area. p. 17

The net objective of defining the boundaries of the market and firm in this manner. Is that the individual Joint Operating Committee's, with their own unique strategies, are able to achieve higher throughput and innovation. Maximizing the reserves in place and optimizing their production.

The final result is that the whole network becomes an innovating machine with each part maximising its contribution and improving the whole at a much faster rate. p. 18

In this next quotation Professor Perez introduces her concept of the SKIESs. I find nothing in her definition that does not directly apply to the CISP. They are one and the same, and I assume that I was reading some previous paper of Professor Perez where the concept was developed. The only thing that I would add to her definition is that the CISP is a community that is focused on defining, building and deploying the People, Ideas & Objects application modules within the producer firms. They are dedicated to optimizing the profitable performance of the producer by using the development team and Information Technology resources made available to them. And would be considered a subset community of the greater number of communities within the definition of SKIEs

This practice of global corporations has very important consequences for the fabric of the economy. It induces the proliferation of small knowledge intensive enterprises (SKIEs) which are active innovators at the same time as they serve as a sort of technical infrastructure for attracting further user investment. The denser the fabric of SKIEs in an economy the greater will be the externalities for growth and competitiveness of the user firms. In addition, SKIEs themselves, in whatever field, are typically intense users of ICT services and of highly skilled human capital. They are also natural networkers with universities and other sources of information within and outside the country of operation. Finally, they are likely to participate in export markets, either through global corporations for whom they are suppliers or through their own efforts. That makes them key actors in the deployment of the knowledge society in each country. p. 18

It should be noted that I see many of the current producer firms employees forming SKIE's and CISP in the future. If you are an engineer or an earth scientiest I think it is fairly reasonable to assume that the producer will remain your primary employer. If you are not in those primary areas of the producer's domain of concern, employment in a SKIE or CISP is more likely. It should be clearly stated at this point that I don't see many of the CISP's being much larger then 5 to 25 people in total. Very specialized groups that are able to cater to the needs of a small hand full of producer clients. Professor Perez also sees these SKIEs as a subset of the Small and Medium sized Enterprises (SMEs).

A major consequence of this is a radical redefinition of the role of SMEs. Without ignoring the importance of the traditional small and medium firms, it would seem that the treatment of SKIEs and the catering to their support requirements, being fundamentally different from those of SMEs, will demand a different set of policies. p. 18

As we will see in a future posting, Professor Perez notes that the SKIEs need to be built in a dedicated fashion. Expecting them to spontaneously exist is dreaming. These capabilities have to be purposely set about to develop, much as People, Ideas & Objects software development capabilities, and sustained for the long term.

There is however a whole range of business-model and organisational innovations to be fostered in these sorts of services, the importance of which becomes greater the more advanced the economy. That is because they are stable employment creators (face-to-face services cannot be off-shored) and because they are possibly those that would most directly influence the quality of life in any particular locality. pp. 19 - 20

I would suspect that bureaucracies are now fully distracted by their escalating costs and flowing wells. The development of these communities and capabilities would therefore fall to the investor and shareholder in oil and gas who are expected to also support People, Ideas & Objects. BP's stock is down 15% and I would question their likely hood of being granted any future offshore leases in the U.S. With the precedent of the Exxon Valdez, this may cause serious damage to the firm. Such that the investor / shareholder might be the ultimate loser in this operational nightmare.

Thus, the hyper segmentation of markets, technologies and activities, is giving rise to an emphasis on the small business unit, be it as a direct part of a Global Corporation, as an independent or semi-independent supplier, as a start-up that can some day become a giant, as a franchisee, a member of a specialised cluster, a local provider of services or an independent expert unit in interaction with other global players in that particular niche. This not only implies giving particular importance to fulfilling the needs of SME innovation but truly paying particular attention to the different types of small companies and their specific requirements. This is part of what will be discussed in the final section. p. 20

Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are. If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and 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 Perez CISP Community Capabilities Funding Development Ownership-Community
 

Lazonick on Chandler Part IV

Part IV of what has turned out to be a phenomenal paper, reviews Lazonick's "Part 3. Social Conditions of Innovative Enterprise" of "The Chandlerian Corporation and the theory of innovative enterprise". I indicated in an earlier post that the Joint Operating Committee and the application of the Draft Specification were consistent with Lazonick's Strategy, Organization and Finance; which make up his framework for "Social Conditions of the Innovative Enterprise". In this post I want to go into more detail as to how I see these three social conditions provide value for the investor / shareholder. Value in using the JOC through application of the People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification and Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP).

Before we begin I want to make a quick note to highlight one attribute of the Draft Specification. In order to make the Draft Specification functional we needed to develop an alternative governance structure to replace the hierarchy. That is the Military Command & Control Metaphor (MCCM) used at the Joint Operating Committee to give the necessary structure for it to operate. Without this structure it would be difficult to implement any plans or to enable any actions. This MCCM replacement structure adopts a pooling of the resources available from the various producers represented at the JOC. This pooling of resources is further augmented by the objective (ie not affiliated with any one producer) and JOC focused pool of CISP that the JOC hires directly. All of these resources adopt a military styled command structure based on their education, experience, skills and the chain of command determined by the JOC representatives.

3. Social conditions of innovative enterprise

Lazonick provides in his social conditions a clarity in how the system is workable when strategy, organization and finance are aligned.

The theory of innovative enterprise provides a framework for analyzing the roles of strategy, organization, and finance in generating the competitive advantage of one firm over another within the same industry (see e.g., Carpenter et al., 2003; Lazonick and Prencipe, 2005; Lazonick, 2009a: ch. 2).... As I have shown in this work [for syntheses, see Lazonick (2003, 2004b, 2007)], the theory of innovative enterprise permits us to identify three social conditions that may support the transformation of strategy, organization, and finance into innovation across the industries and constituent enterprises that characterize the national economy. Even in the highly globalized world of the 21st century, the social conditions of innovative enterprise differ across nations characterized by distinctive economic institutions for governing the allocation of resources, employing labor, and financing investment. pp. 14 - 15

In the Preliminary Research Report it was noted financial interest at the JOC drove consensus and collaborative decision making. People, Ideas & Objects appeal is to the investor / shareholder in oil and gas. It is these individuals that we are attempting to provide an alternate organizational structure, the JOC supported by this software development capability and community, to manage their assets. I therefore see the participants who are sitting at the JOC the individuals that directly own the working interest or their designated proxy. With that in mind lets begin the review of Lazonick's social conditions of the innovative enterprise.

If the shareholder / investor is the one sitting at the JOC, representing their interests, based on the culture of the industry, they are endowed with the operational decision making authority for that property. These decision rights are critical to Lazonick's first social condition.

In the framework that I have developed, the social condition that can transform strategy into innovation is strategic control: a set of relations that gives decision-makers the power to allocate the firm’s resources to confront the technological, market, and competitive uncertainties that are inherent in the innovation process. For innovation to occur, those who occupy strategic decision-making positions must have both the abilities and incentives to allocate resources to innovative investment strategies. Their abilities to do so will depend on their knowledge of how the current innovative capabilities of the organization over which they exercise allocative control can be enhanced by strategic investments in new, typically complementary, capabilities. Their incentives to do so will depend on the alignment of their personal interests with the interests of the business organization in attaining and sustaining its competitive advantage. p. 15

In reading this I am struck by what Professor Carlota Perez said about "new" organizational constructs being "Common-Sense". Those with a reasonable understanding of oil and gas operations can see the nature of this ownership / control mechanism at work in the strategic control social condition. When a JOC is formed it is by agreement. Included within the agreement is an operating procedure with the means spelled out as to the decision making authority under the agreement for that JOC. Therefore the use of the JOC meets the first social condition necessary in Lazonick's framework.

This second social condition is not present in the oil and gas industry today. There is substantial conflict between the JOC and the bureaucracy. The bureaucracy, which represents the operator, conducts all or most of the operations as if it were their own. The JOC is relegated to a few ceremonious meetings to make decisions based on the agreement in hand. It is then the bureaucracy that essentially implements the will of the JOC within its annual operations. There is no pooling of human resources and the non-operator is relegated to spectator status for the better part of the year. This situation can not be sustained when the operators are required to develop their internal capabilities to deal with all of the individual possibilities and contingencies within the areas they operate in. There are not enough engineers and geologists available to meet the needs of each producer building redundant silo's of capabilities that may or may not be required. The Resource Marketplace Module deals with breaking down these silo's and the development of the means to dynamically pool the resources of the producers represented in the JOC. These resources are further augmented by the CISP and the service industries to develop this dynamic capability.

The social condition that can transform organization into innovation is organizational integration: a set of relations that creates incentives for people to apply their skills and efforts to organizational objectives. The need for organizational integration derives from the developmental complexity of the innovation process—that is, the need for organizational learning—combined with the imperative to secure high levels of utilization of innovative investments if the high fixed costs of these developmental investments are to be transformed into low unit costs. Modes of compensation (in the forms of promotion, remuneration, and benefits) are important instruments for integrating individuals into the organization. To generate innovation, a mode of compensation cannot simply manage the labor market by attracting and retaining employees. It must be part of a reward system that manages the learning processes that are the essence of innovation; the compensation system must motivate employees as individuals to engage in collective learning. This collective learning, moreover,cumulates over time, thus necessitating the sustained commitment of financial resources to keep the learning organization intact. p. 15

The Financial Marketplace Module looks to move the financial structure of the industry away from supporting the corporate entity and moves it to directly support the JOC. This implies that, within reason, the property represented would source their bank debt from one bank for all producers. This could be extended to include each working interest owner securitizing the asset on an exchange. (Please see the Compliance & Governance Module for further information on this point.) The point being that strategy and finance need to be aligned. Producers at the JOC are currently conflicted by varying degrees of financial flexibility based on the size of the producer and its financial situation. The size of the producer has no bearing on the innovativeness at the JOC or its upside. A small producer may be more inclined to drag its feet if left to fund their commitments through general bank assignments on the corporation, whereas, the bank representing the JOC could be better positioned to mitigate its risks through a general assignment of the specific JOC.

The social condition that can transform finance into innovation is financial commitment: a set of relations that ensures the allocation of funds to sustain the cumulative innovation process until it generates financial returns. What is often called “patient” capital enables the capabilities that derive from collective learning to cumulate over time, notwithstanding the inherent uncertainty that the innovation process entails. Strategic control over internal revenues is a critical form of financial commitment, but such “inside capital” must often be supplemented by external sources of finance such as stock issues, bond issues, or bank debt that, in different times and places, may be more or less committed to sustaining the innovation process. pp. 15 - 16

Lazonick is talking about more then what the Financial Marketplace Module of the Draft Specification considers. The financing mechanisms are one of the key areas where additional value, flexibility and innovativeness can be generated from. But what Lazonick notes here as the social condition is the role of the CISP . These people are not affiliated with one individual supplier or one individual producer. They are independent as their name reflects. They have not been constrained by the Exxon or Schlumberger way. And I am not stating that those firms ways are wrong, the CISP is independent of that. Their focus is on the needs of the JOC and the ability to be innovative and support this software development capability as well as the JOC.

In yesterday's post I offered the "Velocity of Productivity" as a new concept to consider for the future. This is the domain of the CISP in terms of ensuring that the value of the industry, the JOC and the software development are all consistent with social conditions that Lazonick correctly asserts are necessary for Strategy, Organization and Finance to be in alignment.

Lastly as I indicated in the first part of this post the Military Command & Control Metaphor is a critical concept in making these "Social Conditions for the Innovative Enterprise" work. Without structure there will be failure. What is needed is a means to extend the structure of the JOC to include the producers represented, the CISP and the suppliers who make the industry function. The broadening of the scope outside of the current "operator-only" methodology is a necessity due to the resource constraints, particularly the engineering and earth science resources of an innovative oil and gas industry. What we need to do is introduce a different means of organization in order to expand the potential output of the oil and gas industry. The MCCM and Lazonicks "Framework for Social Conditions of the Innovative Enterprise" are the means to do that.

People, Ideas & Objects and the Community of Independent Service Providers need to see this financial commitment from the oil and gas investor and shareholder. We are offering a more effective manner in which to manage the oil and gas resources of the producer firm, and this effectiveness will not come about without the commitment's from these producers. Management have proven time and again that they will not fund these developments. There's is a situation that compromises the separation of management and ownership to the benefit of management. Why would they support an effective means of managing oil and gas assets.

Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are. If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and 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 Chandler CISP Funding Budget Ownership-Community
 

Lazonick on Chandler Part IIIb

This is our third post from Lazonick's paper "The Chandlerian Corporation and the theory of innovative enterprise." In our past two blog posts we have learned some interesting things that are directly relevant to People, Ideas & Objects. In the first post we noted the three generic activities that require alignment; strategy, organization and finance. How the Draft Specification provides for these three activities. And the differences between two corporate strategies defined as "optimizers" and "innovators". Noting that Lazonick defines optimizers as non-innovators. In the second post we determined that the business of the oil and gas business required substantial investment to attain the necessary innovative strategic footing. How today the current bureaucracies are unwilling and incapable of making these investments. And that the investors / shareholders in oil and gas have the opportunity to form their own new and revised organizational ways and means around using the Joint Operating Committee as the key organizational construct, and the People, Ideas & Objects software development capability.

In the Preliminary Research Report it is noted that the higher commodity prices are a reallocation of the financial resources to support innovation. It is the product revenues from oil and gas sales that fuel the innovations. Financing of innovation through debt, equity or profits would be too costly and would generally be inadequate in terms of affecting the performance of the industry. A much larger source of funding is required to fuel the type of innovation that the oil and gas needs. Innovation is a profit generating activity. This fact becomes clearer in today's review of Lazonicks paper.

2. The theory of innovative enterprise cont

In the first quarter of 2010 People, Ideas & Objects attempted to fund its budget needs for the calendar year. As we are aware, the total sum of these activities generated $0.00. This in direct contrast to the 30 compelling reasons supporting why we should be funded. I have pointed to this funding failure as a fact that proves the bureaucracy will never fund these developments. The point is that this environment needs to be created and supported. As Schumpeter noted "innovation drives economic development."

The optimizing firm may calculate, on the basis of prior experience, the risk of a deterioration of current market conditions, but it has no way of contemplating, let alone calculating, the uncertainty of returns for conditions of supply and demand that, because innovation is involved, have yet to be created. The fact, moreover, that the optimizing firm will only finance investments for which an adequate return already exists creates an opportunity for the innovating firm to make innovative investments that, if successful, can enable it to out compete optimizing firms. Indeed, in the future optimizing firms may find that the cause of the “poor market conditions” that they face is not the result of an exogenous shift in the industry demand curve but rather the result of competition from innovating firms that have gained competitive advantage while their own managers happily optimized (as indeed the economics textbooks instructed them to do) subject given technological and market constraints. p. 9

Therefore I see the existence of two fundamentally different oil and gas industries for the next 10 years. Those that are optimizing and atrophying, and those that are innovating and growing. A key difference is the use of the People, Ideas & Objects software that supports and defines the innovative oil and gas producer. The critical role of the Community of Independent Service Providers (CISP) in enabling oil and gas innovation. And the direct investments in innovation that are needed.

An innovative strategy, with its fixed costs, results from the assessment by the firm’s strategic decision-makers of the quality and quantity of productive resources in which the firm must invest to develop higher quality processes and products than those previously available or that may be developed by competitors. It is this development of productive resources internal to the enterprise that creates the potential for an enterprise that pursues an innovative strategy to gain a sustained advantage over its competitors and emerge as dominant in its industry. p. 10

Lets be clear, the costs of these software developments are minuscule to the costs of developing the innovative oil and gas industry. The global oil and gas industry is currently a $3.8 trillion / year industry. I see a significant portion of those annual revenues being dedicated to the processes of innovation. A critical enabling resource within the industry will be the Community of Independent Service Providers, they are the ones that will have the skills and resources necessary to support the innovative oil and gas producer. They are how the energy industry evolves and matches or supports the innovations made at the producer level. Achieving the CISP's overall objective of providing their producer clients with the most profitable means of oil and gas operations. What is needed for both the software and communities to develop is to have access to these financial resources.

Such development of productive resources, when successful, becomes embodied in products, processes, and people with superior productive capabilities than those that had previously existed. But the high fixed costs that such investments entail mean that in and of themselves these investments place the firm at a competitive disadvantage until such time that, by developing and utilizing these investments, it can transform the technologies and access the markets that can generate returns. An innovative strategy that can eventually enable the firm to develop superior productive capabilities may place that firm at a cost disadvantage because such strategies tend to entail higher fixed costs than the fixed costs incurred by rivals that choose to optimize subject to given constraints. p. 10

I can not for the life of me see the energy industry as it exists today changing to the one described in the previous quote. It isn't in their organizational DNA. The process of creative destruction, or as I have detailed the two oil and gas industries, one optimizing the other innovating, is the only means that change of this scale can take place. As the optimizing firms atrophy and their earnings decline, assets will be sold to the innovators, creating a substantial opportunity for the innovative producer through this process of renewal.

If the size of investments in physical capital tends to increase the fixed costs of an innovative strategy, so too does the duration of the investment required for an organization of people to engage in the collective and cumulative—or organizational—learning that is the central characteristic of the innovation process. p. 10

and

The revenues (and not just the profits) that the innovating firm generates can be critical to maintaining its organization intact. When the innovating firm generates revenues, it has financial resources that can be allocated in a number of ways. If the gains from innovation are sufficient, the firm’s revenues create the possibility for self-financing....For the innovating firm, financial resources not only fund new investment but also enable the firm to keep its “learning” organization intact. The innovating firm can use the gains of innovative enterprise to reward its employees for their application of skill and effort to transforming technology (unbending the cost curve) and accessing markets (shifting out the demand curve). p. 13

We have commented on this blog many times before about the mechanical leverage that man has achieved over the past century. 18,000 man hours of labor is contained within each barrel of oil. To convert this factor into the number of man years of physical effort that is offset each year for each American, that number is 385. That is; each American receives the equivalent benefit of 385 man years of physical effort per year. Truly surprising and something that has to be maintained by ensuring that the oil and gas is available to continue to provide the offset. The point in raising this is to ask the question, at what point in time do we achieve an equivalent level of leverage in terms of intellectual thought? And as importantly, how do we get there? I know the first two steps are to gain a software development capability and secondly begin the development of the Community of Independent Service Providers.

The innovation process, that is, can potentially overcome the “constrained-optimization” trade-offs between consumption and production in the allocation of resources as well as between capital and labor, and even between enterprise and society, in the allocation of returns. It is for this reason that innovation can form the foundation for equitable and stable economic growth, or what I have called “sustainable prosperity” (Lazonick and O’Sullivan, 2002; Lazonick, 2009a). p. 14

Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are. If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and 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 Chandler CISP Innovation Strategy Funding Ownership-Community
 

Focused on the Value

Number eight of eight in our "Focused on" series looks at the value proposition of People, Ideas & Objects. Noting how the costs of ERP systems have escalated. Where the business models in which they are sold provides People, Ideas & Objects with the opportunity to provide substantial competitive advantages.

The People, Ideas & Objects Value Proposition

Big ERP application costs have soared in the past few decades. Based on selling a generic solution to each producer, the business of selling big iron applications have been lucrative for the chosen few vendors. On the other hand producers are frustrated by the extensive one-off costs associated with customizing, supporting and operating these applications within their firms.

What if the software development costs associated with customization were aggregated for their use over the entire industry. People might argue that a producers competitive advantages would be diminished by everyone having access to the same software. I argue that the innovative oil and gas producers competitive advantages are based on their earth science and engineering capabilities applied to their asset base. Each producer holds a unique and mutually exclusive asset base to all other producers. As a result of this argument, the costs of custom development, although large in terms of aggregate, are infinitesimal in terms of a specific producers production base. This is the future of software and the value that People, Ideas & Objects is designed to provide.

In the marketplace today support costs are substantial as each producer must attain a capability to deal with any and all contingencies. Does the quality of a Java programmer have a direct impact on a producers reserves or production profile? Of course not, then why does the innovative oil and gas producer need to employ the Java programmer directly?

People, Ideas & Objects offers a compelling and competitive value proposition. Our funding is based on the software development and cloud computing costs, plus an element of profit for People, Ideas & Objects. A fundamentally different business model to the big iron ERP vendors. A business model that deals with the two critical conflicts in software, those conflicts being the source code and the software developers customers. Traditionally as more customers use the software, the costs to change the software code become progressively larger, and the costs to deploy the changes more difficult. People, Ideas & Objects eliminates these two conflicts by providing a software development capability and service based on cloud computing. If users determine that an application function is redundant and should be replaced, they won't get an argument from us.

As a result of the Information & Communication Technology Revolution (ICTR), software defines and supports organizations. It can be the glue that holds things together, it can be the cement that stops any change or innovation, and it can be the tools oil and gas investors need to develop their own organizational definitions. An organizational definition that provides enhanced ownership control, compliance and governance over the current bureaucracies methods. A software development capability as defined by People, Ideas & Objects is a necessity to operate in the dynamic and innovative oil and gas industry.

Our appeal should be based on these eight "Focused on" priorities and values of how better the oil and gas industry and its operations could be handled. They may not initially be the right way to go, but we are committed to working with the various communities to discover and ensure the right ones are. If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and 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 Focus Value-Proposition Funding Development Ownership-Community
 

Professor David Mowery on Chandler

We now continue on with our review of Alfred D. Chandler's work. A review of the historical development of the corporation through the last century. This posts notes the publication of a new issue of Industrial and Corporate Change that is dedicated solely to Chandler for this purpose. This represents a large body of work which our review is being aggregated under the "Chandler" label of this blog. 

Much has changed in the past few decades when the seven sisters (Shell, BP, Chevron, Texaco, Exxon, Mobil, and Amoco) were dominating the oil and gas industry. They were able to generate much of the oil and gas reserves and production in the world due to the fact that they had the size and scale necessary to manage huge libraries of geological and production information and data. Floors of buildings were dedicated to the storage of this data and large departments were dedicated to maintaining these libraries. Next to these large investments were the geological scientists and engineers that were able to access these libraries of information and apply their knowledge on a global scale. These began to fade from prominence in the early 1980's, and today this information is provided through any number of systems that are generally available for a few thousand dollars per month. What was once a competitive advantage in the storage and use of scientific data, has been replaced by the pure scientific capabilities of the earth scientists and engineers.

So powerful were these libraries that most of the geologists trained at the seven sisters, and who had early access to these libraries, are predominately the heads of the independent producers today. Such was the power of those libraries that one could learn enough about a region, that the geologist or engineer could leave the firm, either purchase the property or buy some land and take the chance they would become successful. Chandler notes similar developments in all large businesses.

Indeed, Chandler’s earlier historical work on US railways highlighted the role of these large enterprises in training such manufacturing magnates as Andrew Carnegie and Edgar Thomson. But the importance of established firms as “incubators” and learning for the entrepreneurs who subsequently guided the formation and entry of new firms within the same industry suggests that the barriers to entry emphasized by Chandler were surmountable by individuals or firms able to transfer and improve on the knowledge that they acquired in established firms. p. 21

Although it was and is a science based business, the science today is pure in terms of its application. That is to say, it's more of a scientific theory that drives the start-up success in the business. Large producers are limited to picking off the start-up at the right time where the science is established and the value is not yet fully recognized. This has become a multi-billion dollar game of high risk, high reward science and knowledge based business. It is reasonable to assume that these databases and information were developed throughout the many decades that the seven sisters existed. However, I was only witness to their existence in the late 1970's and the demise of their effectiveness by Information Technology (IT).

This post deals with the paper "Alfred Chandler and knowledge management within the firm" written by Berkeley Professor David Mowery. However, I want to start with a document that is also included in this Oxford Journal "Introduction to Management Innovation: Essays in the Spirit of Alfred D. Chandler Jr." by Professor William Lazonick and Professor David J. Teece. I will start with a few quotations from Lazonick and Teece and then move to review the paper of Mowery.

Through a prodigious body of work that included the volumes, Strategy and Structure (1962), The Visible Hand (1977), and Scale and Scope (1990), Professor Chandler made the study of the evolution of business enterprise integral to the study of the evolution of economy and society. His work combined detailed historical investigations with grand sociological syntheses. As a result, Chandler’s study of the modern business enterprise invited social scientists and business academics as well as historians to contribute to our understanding of a central institution of our time.

and

In memory of a great scholar and in honor of his intellectual legacy, Industrial and Corporate Change is publishing this special issue of essays that build on Chandler’s work. We have chosen “management innovation” as the unifying theme of this special issue to emphasize the Chandlerian contribution to the analysis of the ways in which people who exercise strategic control over the allocation of resources put in place organizational structures that can enable an enterprise to prosper and grow.

This last quotation placing the context of the review that we are doing on the geological libraries of the seven sisters. Today the geological and engineering issues and the opportunities in the oil and gas are all known. What isn't known is how to solve or take advantage of them. For example tight gas formations hold significant volumes of natural gas. Most people know where the tight gas resides in the world, the ability to develop them into commercial fields is the trick. Now as the development of packers and multiple fractures on lateral wells becomes more commonplace, the science moves onto other issues. Maintaining a competitive advantage in this environment is temporary, and the firm needs to move quickly through the sciences or have the capability to aggregate oil and gas reserves by acquisition.

Sustainable competitive advantage in the large corporations that emerged from the historical processes analyzed by Chandler typically rested on more than technological capabilities alone. Instead, it was the creation of technological and organizational capabilities through corporate investments in management, manufacturing, and marketing, as well as the managerial ability to recognize the business contexts to which these capabilities were best suited, that differentiated successful from unsuccessful corporate performance over the long run. p. 2

I believe that all sizes and all types of producers would be advantaged by having People, Ideas & Objects Draft Specification built. In addition to having access to the geological and engineering technologies and capabilities, Mowery notes the organizational capabilities were necessary as well. Today the barriers to entry are not so much just the sciences, but also the ability to be in compliance with the various regulations and governance frameworks that govern the modern corporation. Recall we are moving the Compliance & Governance frameworks of the hierarchy to align with the five frameworks (legal, financial, cultural, communication and operational decision making) of the Joint Operating Committee. It is therefore in everyone's best interests that the compliance and governance required be provided to all participants in the oil and gas industry. What I am seeing is the past barriers to entry being the access to the geological libraries of the seven sisters being replaced by today's barriers of the compliance and governance frameworks of the modern corporations. This is unnecessary and an impediment to progress in the oil and gas industry.

Industrial R&D and the product diversification that emerged from the in-house R&D facilities of many of these firms contributed to the development of the so-called “M-form” corporation (the origins and development of which in the United States were examined by Chandler in Strategy and Structure), in which corporate management and strategy formulation were organizationally differentiated and separated from functional management. pp. 2 - 3

And that is why the bureaucracy exists. What was necessary for the seven sisters to develop this "industrial R&D" demanded that size and scope be managed through the layers of management and corporate management. This is not the situation today, the technology is available to support and identify the key organizational construct of the innovative oil and gas producers, that being the Joint Operating Committee, and a more direct form of ownership where the investor or shareholder is the owner of the properties interest.

For Chandler, therefore, the efficiency advantages of intrafirm coordination underpinned the growth of large firms and increased producer concentration, and explained the differential pattern of adoption during the late 19th and 20th centuries of these new methods for administrative coordination among US industries. p. 6

What has'nt changed in oil and gas is the ability to understand and operate within the industry. The tacit knowledge that is the critical resource that makes the industry operate. Although today it is far more disorganized from the perspective that these capabilities are not housed in one location, the value of the tacit knowledge is just as important, and possibly more important today then a few decades ago. Recall one of our break-through's is that tacit knowledge drives software definition. Tacit knowledge can't be captured, but it needs to be organized.

Central to these studies is the idea of an “integrated learning base” that is rooted in the technical, functional, and managerial capabilities that are embedded in the organization rather than individuals. Chandler argued for the knowledge-based foundations of all three types of capabilities: “ . . . the large enterprise performs its critical role in the evolution of industries not merely as a unit carrying out transactions on the basis of flows of information, but, more important, as a creator and repository of product-related embedded organizational knowledge.” (2005b: 6) p. 13

The technical, functional and managerial capabilities need to be identified and supported in a software application such as the Draft Specification. Otherwise we are destined to muddle along as the last remnants of the bureaucracy atrophy.

Chandler’s focus on a small number of established firms, most of which were founded before 1940, reflected his view that entry barriers and the development of technical capabilities within these firms precluded competition from entrants. p. 14

and

Chandler’s historical discussion stresses the contrasting paths of development of the leading German, British, and US “first-movers” in chemicals, and then considers the entry by large petroleum firms into the chemicals industry during the 1940s and 1950s, and the difficulties faced by US chemicals firms in particular in their efforts to diversify out of commodity chemicals. As was the case in electronics, the efforts of these firms to diversify into unrelated industries, ranging from oil and gas to residential construction, were consistently unsuccessful, which Chandler attributed to the importance of firm-specific capabilities and the limited applicability of these knowledge-based capabilities to very different industries. p. 15

Clearly energy's history accurately replicates these trends that Chandler discovered. Big oil and gas was able to attain scale through the management of information and knowledge. Technology has had a remarkably destructive effect on these capabilities. And today, the need to have these types of "technical, functional and management capabilities" need to be re-developed. But not on a global scale as they were by the seven sisters. On a scale that is represented by each and every JOC. The level of focus, in order to be successful, requires that strategy and structure be appropriate for the times. This level of focus (@ the JOC) is one of the break-through's that the Preliminary Research Report determined was necessary for the innovative oil and gas producer.

As I noted earlier, Chandler relied on a broad conceptualization of the knowledge relevant to the creation and maintenance of competitive advantage. p. 16

and

For Chandler, therefore, competitive advantage rests on more than technological knowledge alone. p. 16

In June of 2007, which was a critical time in terms of the development of the Draft Specification. This blog reviewed Professor Richard N. Lanlgois paper "The Vanishing Hand: the Changing Dynamics of Industrial Capitalism" in which the movement away from Chandler's visible hand of management was leading back to the invisible hand of Adam Smith's markets. Professor Langlois is one of the key researchers that was used in the development of People, Ideas & Objects. Mowery notes;

As Langlois (2003) pointed out in his survey of these developments, the “visible hand"; of Chandler’s large firms has been challenged in many industries by a revival of the “invisible hand,” as market-based coordination of transactions among vertically specialized firms partially or entirely replaces intrafirm management of these transactions. p. 18

We see through this historical perspective the work of Chandler being directly applicable to the oil and gas industry. I think we also see the need to act to reclaim what is necessary in terms of corporate organization today. As the bureaucracy atrophies, we have to deliberately replace it with something purpose built. Our focus at People, Ideas & Objects is to do just that.

In his 1973 Presidential Address to the Economic History Association (Chandler, 1973), Alfred Chandler characterized his historical research as being focused on the study of decision-making corporate strategy, and the historical development of modern industrial corporations. p. 21

and

His research on the emergence of the modern, multifunction industrial corporation emphasized the central role of knowledge management as a factor contributing to the expansion in the boundaries of the modern firm and eventually, to the development of the decentralized “M-form” organizational structure. Chandler’s later work on the long-term performance (including the collapse) of established firms in knowledge-intensive industries extended this research to cover much of the 20th century. p. 21

and

Although his research emphasized the importance of knowledge management in corporate strategy and development, it is difficult to develop testable or falsifiable hypotheses from much of Chandler’s work. His invaluable contributions to scholarship derive their force and influence from his masterful reading and synthesis of the historical evidence, rather than from the development of an analytic model or predictive theory. Indeed, as I noted earlier, Chandler’s work on modern high-technology industries failed to recognize the development of new models of competition that threatened the position of many of his older “core companies.” But the breadth of his analysis, spanning more than a century of economic development across three continents, distinguishes his historiography from that of almost any other recent scholar in business and economic history, and helps account for his lasting influence on both historical research and contemporary work on corporate strategy. By highlighting the historical forces that underpinned the growth of the large industrial firms that dominated the global economy for much of the 20th century, Chandler’s work will enable future scholars to better understand the new factors that are transforming the 21st-century economy. pp. 21 - 22

If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and 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 Chandler Langlois Ownership-Community
 

Proof

Our 2010 budget campaign is now over. We've raised the total of $0.00 and documented over 30 compelling reasons that People, Ideas & Objects should be funded. Yesterday we saw that management have many alternatives at their disposal, all of which distract their focus from the issues facing the business. Shell's CIO accurately reflecting how lost management has become.

I feel the evidence that we have provided in this web-log, over just the past 90 days, proves that management will never fund these developments. Their situation is comfortable, therefore People, Ideas & Objects shares many of the same complaints about management as the directors, investors and shareholders in oil and gas.

It is therefore in our best interests that we cultivate this community and establish a long-term funding, and mutually beneficial, relationship with directors, investors and shareholders. The stated purpose of doing so should be to eliminate the type of self-serving management and bureaucracy that is the source of our mutual difficulties.

Getting back to the business of the oil and gas business is an urgent requirement of society. Management feel they have the capabilities to raise the global production profile at will and that is their stated position. I believe there is money to be made in the energy business and the need to organize ourselves for the task at hand is our first priority. Organizing ourselves in the manner as defined in the vision of the Draft Specification.

So with this post, I want to formally recognize the director, investor and shareholder as forming a community that we represent here at People, Ideas & Objects. With this post I will aggregate all the discussions around the label Ownership-Community. As we focus on the process of building the User, Community of Independent Service Provider and Ownership-Communities for the remainder of 2010. It is with regret that we can not fund any developments until we have sourced adequate funding, however, there is still much that can be done.

It is reasonable to ask if this is a new form of economic organization? Yes, it most definitely is. And therefore, we begin to look at the works of Alfred D. Chandler. With the hope and understanding of determining new research and ideas from a review of corporate history and its development, we will continue onwards.

If your an enlightened producer, an oil and gas director, investor or shareholder, who would be interested in funding these software developments and communities, please follow our Funding Policies & Procedures, and our Hardware Policies & Procedures. If your a government that collects royalties from oil and gas producers, and are concerned about the accuracy of your royalty income, please review our Royalty Policies & Procedures and 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 Budget Funding Ownership-Community