Four Grand Challenges

Comments on Jodrell Bank Speech

Theresa May, British Prime Minister, May 21st 2018, Macclesfield

In yesterday’s post I had high expectations of scooping a major news story, but no. Maybe it’s because I don’t own a television, but I am very disappointed by the lack of coverage of a speech that history may look back as a turning point when we, “as a nation” – to borrow a phrase, shifted our focus from banking and finance back to inventiveness and engineering. Maybe that’s just my hope though.

I’ve listened to radio 4 and searched on the BBC and ITV websites, but all the references to the speech are in relation to Brexit and are all sound bites. They all miss the point entirely.

The speech was full of historical rhetoric about how great we used to be in science and name checked a roll-call of the great and the good. It therefore managed to tick both the jingoistic and nostalgic boxes. This was, however, not a light-weight speech but instead sets out a direction of travel and intent that we should all be aware of, because it has the potential to change our industrial history.

The full speech can be read here https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-science-and-modern-industrial-strategy-21-may-2018

Like with Harold Wilson’s “white heat of revolution” speech where I didn’t comment on his pro-soviet views, I will also not comment on the Brexit views contained within this speech. That is as divisive and full of misinformation as was the capitalist/communist argument in the 1930s to 1960s and a rabbit hole that yesterday’s media went straight down – missing the point entirely.

Here are some of my highlights of the speech. Some of these, as predicted, do echo the structure used by Wilson in 1963, though to be fair, perhaps it was closer to the 1961 speech to congress by JFK [link].

On the scale of change of the 4th Industrial Revolution we now face, referencing of 1945 Britain

Their grand-parents lit their homes with oil lamps and travelled by horse and cart, but they would live to see jet travel and space flight.

Echoing the 1960’s speeches

[…] the world today stands at the threshold of a new technological age as exciting as any in our past. Great changes in how we live, how we work, how we trade will reshape our economy and transform our society in the years ahead. This technical revolution presents huge opportunities for countries with the means to seize them. And Britain is in pole position to do just that […]

[…] But success is not automatic. We are at the forefront of scientific invention because we embrace change and use regulation not to stifle but to stimulate an environment for creativity […]

[…] Scientific research is a noble pursuit and a public good – whether or not it leads directly to a commercial application. But when a discovery does have the potential to create or transform an industrial sector, time and again British entrepreneurs have been the first to capitalise on it[…]

[…] However, the nature of innovation and progress is that new technology inevitably replaces old. And in the twenty first century, some parts of the country that once thrived because of innovation and technology has seen the jobs and opportunities of the past fall away […]

[…] Our challenge as a nation, and my determination as Prime Minister, is not just to lead the world in the 4th Industrial Revolution – but to ensure that every part of our country powers that success. […] Nurturing the talent of tomorrow – through more outstanding schools, world-leading universities and the technical skills that will drive our economy.

On Investment in Science and Technology

£7Billion in new public funding for science, research and innovation […] goal of 2.4% GDP invested by 2027 […] Could translate into £80 billion investment over the next decade.

On Education in new technology

£26K tax-free bursaries for new teachers in priority subjects […] New T-Levels as good as A-Levels […] New Institutes of Technology […] National retraining scheme to help workers of all ages adapt their skills to the jobs of tomorrow.

On other elements of the strategy

Renewing and extending our infrastructure with faster trains, bigger stations, better roads […] Delivering the next generation of mobile and broadband connections […] Right regulation, modern employment standards, effective corporate governance.

At this point in the speech Theressa May laid out what she calls 4 grand challenges. Noting that it’s hard to predict exactly what breakthroughs lie ahead, she set out a Mission for each of the challenges with promises of more to come. So stay awake!

Grand Challenge 1: AI and data

Mission: Use AI and data to save lives.

In short use AI and data to predict diseases that kill people which if detected early are treatable.

Grand Challenge 2: Healthy Ageing

Mission: 5 extra years of healthy living by 2035.

Use technology to keep people happy, healthy and independent in their own homes, change employment responsibilities and innovate new products.

Grand Challenge 3: Future Mobility

Mission: Only zero emission vehicles by 2040

We pioneered trains and jet air travel, so this should be a doddle. A bit light on details though. But get on with it, we invented Formula 1 for heaven’s sake.

Grand Challenge 4: Clean Growth

Mission: Halve energy usage of new buildings by 2040.

Well pretty much what it says on the tin for that one.

These four missions are just the beginning – and in setting further missions across the four grand challenge areas, we will work closely with business and [the private] sector.  In each one of these four missions, scientific and technological innovations have the potential to create jobs, drive economic growth across the country and deliver tangible improvements for everyone in our country.

Conclusion

This is the first use of the term “4th Industrial Revolution” by a British Prime Minister. It shows a recognition that big changes are underway in the structure of society and the way it integrates with the world of work and therefore inevitably in the distribution of wealth and allocation of capital.

The OGTC in Aberdeen must be a happy place today, if there is anything to note for them there will be much more funding for institutions like them and their influence on policy can only increase.

Of the four “Grand Challenges” it seems to me that “AI and Data” will be required for the other three too, so the structure is a bit wrong. The missions however seem like a good concrete way to lay things out – though, to be fair, they are not really up their with JFK’s mission announcement at Rice University in 1962 [link]

At least she didn’t say : We didn’t choose to go to Cheshire because it is easy, we do this and the other things because they are hard. Have you seen the potholes on the M6 or the price of a train ticket to Prestbury?

Though technology may even have reached that far North. I am reliably informed you can now get an Uber in Prestbury. There is – exactly – one. British enterprise knows no bounds.

Industrial strategy revisited

Today, May 21st 2018, the UK Prime Minister, Theresa May is scheduled to give a speech regarding AI and the use of health data. This is the start of the revelation of the UK government’s new industrial strategy. From my vantage point, I see this political response to be part of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. My post was written (and published) before this speech and is a naughty attempt by me to see how well her speech writers know their political history. I have framed this in the terms of the Oil and Gas industry, Mrs. May’s speech will address Health Tech, but maybe some of the broader themes will resonate.

Industrial strategy is a something that the government hasn’t really majored on since the days of Anthony Wedgewood Benn.  They do say that history doesn’t repeat – but it does echo. This post draws on the “White Heat of Technology Revolution” speech given by Harold Wilson in October 1963.

To provide some context, Mr. Wilson’s speech was given during the early days of the 3rd industrial revolution. At this point we were seeing the start of computerisation and automation. Within a few short years we would see: the end of the typing pool; the death of the statistical time-and-motion studies; ledgers would be replaced with spreadsheets; and punch cards with magnetic tape with hard disk drives.

Unlike Mr. Wilson, who basically suggested that we better get on board with computerisation or we are all doomed; it appears that Mrs. May’s speech is going to suggest that AI can help cure cancer. Maybe it’s true that you can catch more wasps with honey than with vinegar. Mr Wilson’s political approach led, eventually, to the “Winter of Discontent” and the inevitable computerisation/automation led to the mass unemployment and the industrial upheaval of the 1970’s. Perhaps there are “interesting times” ahead?

I’ve taken some liberties by extracting parts of the 55 year old speech and reframed them. Perhaps you, too, will hear the echoes of history and see the implication of the change that we now face. For a transcript of the full speech have a look at this link

White Heat of Technology in Oil and Gas

(with apologies to Harold Wilson)

Now, this morning, I present this blog post to the world, the oil industry and the 4th Industrial Revolution, because the strength, the solvency and influence of the oil and gas industry which some still think depends upon nostalgic illusions or upon sub-sea posturing – these things are going to depend in the remainder of this century to a unique extent on the speed with which we come to terms with the world of change.

There is no more dangerous illusion than the comfortable doctrine that the world owes us a living […..] From now on The Oil Industry will have just as much influence on energy supply as we can deserve. We have no accumulated reserves on which to live.

It is, of course, a cliché that we are living in a time of such rapid scientific change that our children are accepting as part of their everyday life things which would have been dismissed as science fiction a few years ago. We are living perhaps in a more rapid revolution than some of us realise. The period from 2018 until the mid 2020’s will embrace a period of technical change particularly in production methods, greater than the whole industrial revolution and period of computerisation that went before.

It is only a few years since we first talked about digitalisation […..] Let us be frank about one thing. It is no good trying to comfort ourselves with the thought that digitalisation need not happen here; that it is going to create so many problems that we should perhaps put our heads in the sand and let it pass us by. Because there is no room for Luddites in our industry. If we try to abstract from the digitalisation age, the only result will be that the Oil Industry will become a stagnant backwater, pitied and condemned by the rest of commerce.

[….]

Because we have to recognize that digitalisation is not just one more process in the history of computerisation, if by computerisation we mean the application of technology to eliminate the need for data gathering and analysis by middle-management. The essence of modern digitalisation is that it replaces hitherto unique human functions of: risk assessment; judgement, decision making in the face of uncertainty; and ultimately action taking. Now digitalisation has reached the point where it commands facilities of memory and of judgement far beyond the capacity of any human being or group of human beings who have ever lived.

[….]

Or listen to the problem in another way. We can now set a machine learning system so that, without the intervention of any human agency, it can produce a new set of algorithms smarter than itself. And when these tools have acquired, as they have now, the faculty of unassisted reproduction, you have reached a point of no return where if man is not going to assert his control over machines, the machines are going to assert their control over man.

[….]

The problem is this. Since technological progress left to the mechanism of private property can lead only to high profits for a few, a high rate of employment for a few and to mass redundancies for the many.

[…]

Now I come to what we must do, and there are four things:

  1. We must produce more digitally trained engineers
  2. Once produced we must be more successful in keeping them in the industry
  3. We must make intelligent use of them
  4. We must organize the oil Industry so that it applies the results of their insights to the efficient production of hydrocarbons

[…..]

Relevant, also, to these problems are our plans for on-demand cyber training and MOOC’s (Massive Online Open Courses). These are designed to provide an opportunity to those who have not been trained in digital methods to do so with all that the internet and mobile technologies can offer.

[…..]

I have talked in other companies to ex oil-and-gas digital-workers who have left the industry. It is not so much a question salary; it is the poor valuation put on their work by our industries; the lack of interest in their work; and the inadequate provision of digital infrastructure and equipment. It is because in many cases in the Oil industry today, promotion of those versed in technological methods and their new ideas for ways-of-working are thwarted by middle management.

One message I hope this conference can send out, not only to those who are wondering whether to leave the industry or not, but to those who have already left is this: we want you to stay here. We want those of you who have left the industry to think about coming back, because the industry is going to need you.

[….]

The oil industry that is going to be forged in the white heat of this revolution will be no place for restrictive practices or for outdated methods on either side of IT or the Business. We shall need a totally new attitude to the problems of educating for changing working practices. If there is one thing where the traditional philosophy of capitalism breaks down it is in the training for digitalization, because quite frankly it does not pay any individual operator, unless it is very altruistic, quixotic or farsighted, to train the digital workers if it knows at the end they will be snapped up by some unscrupulous firm that makes no contribution to the training. That is what economists mean when they talk about the difference between marginal private cost and net social cost.

I’ll leave you to read the original and draw your own conclusions, I don’t agree with all the cut-and-thrust and pro-soviet views expressed but there are echoes from history that we ignore now at our peril.

Image Credit is from MI5. Oh, and if you like a good conspiracy theory have a look at the denials on MI5’s website about the alleged plot to bring down the Wilson government of 1974-76, and – interestingly – that George W Bush was head of the CIA (who knew? He kept that quiet). https://www.mi5.gov.uk/the-wilson-plot

 

 

Oil Companies Can’t Innovate?

I have just returned from two digital-operations conferences in Aberdeen. There was a common complaint among technology providers. They complained constantly that oil companies are slow to make decisions and don’t innovate (or specifically – buy their products). Some vendors even suggested that oil companies were 20 years behind the curve – that there are proven technologies available and in use in other industries that are yet to be deployed.

Of course, this is demonstrably wrong. Other than space and defence, I cannot name many other industries that can do something comparable to placing a drill bit 3KM into the earth in a water depth of 1KM with an accuracy of a few tens of meters. Engineers do this with real-time information from the drill-bit being beamed across the globe to operations centres thousands of miles away. That’s pretty amazing.

In truth – much engineering innovation comes from service companies rather than oil companies. Lots of technology and information processing is applied to exploration and drilling, a lot less in production-operations. The split in innovation from oil company to service company can be traced to decisions in the 1970’s and 80’s, the efficiencies and breakthroughs arose from companies such as Schlumberger, Gearheart and Atlas. However, the super majors such as Shell, BP and NOC’s (National Oil Companies)  like Aramco still undertake loads of research and have come up with solutions – such as polymers, de-ionised water for injection and their own seismic interpretation algorithms.

Still the point is valid – the 4th industrial revolution will mainly affect industrial operations. There is a distinction between operations within the business of oil-field services, and operations within the production of hydrocarbons. Both have the opportunity to become more efficient. Despite the opportunity, I’ve witnessed the complexity of buying and lack of progress in technology adoption within oil company operations, and it’s very frustrating.

I had a conversation with a senior exec at one of the new independents. I asked him why new ways of working were not being adopted.  His answer was very interesting. He told me that his team had just completed a new well on an old field. The well cost about £20m, took about 8 weeks from spud to completion, and was flowing at 3-5K BBl/day. It was simple, quick, contained, could be purchased as a work-package and was very much business as usual. No disruption to the organisation. That’s a return of more than 100% pa, a payback period of less than a year, and simple.

New technology implementation (the types of activity I was proposing) couldn’t promise that sort of percentage (or absolute) return, sounded complex and would – inevitably – require significant change to implement within the organisation. He had a point.

But that’s not an excuse. One day, and it may be soon, the sort of margins available on wells will disappear. There will be fields where the lifting cost exceeds the sale price for crude – but where there are still significant hydrocarbons left in the reservoir. In these situations, the impetus to reduce the cost of operations will be provided by the opportunities for profit. Somebody will be interested.

Look at what happened with shale in the USA. Fracking is not a new idea. The innovation of shale came from the combination of planning drainage patterns, drilling accurately, hooking up without interruption and – crucially – increasing the rate of development while dramatically reducing the per-well cost. Once this approach to development was established, it was game on.

When the big boys bought in – I was at BG we bought into Exco [link] – they didn’t come to the low-cost shale drillers and tell them to adopt the big-oil processes. The ponderous decision making and bureaucratic approvals required for $100m HTHP that takes 6 months to plan and drill, would have been impossible to handle the programme needed for a campaign of sub 100K 4-day wells required for shale.

It’s going to be the same again. With the late-life fields and new players, someone is going to figure a way to get the operating costs per barrel in a late-life field down below $10/Bbl and the big-boys are going take notice and learn.

The innovation required is going to come from low-cost technologies combined with an efficient operating model. Clay Christiansen in his book The Innovators Dilemma [Link  ]examined the disk drive industry and how the “big-oil” of storage were out competed by start-ups with sub-performance (but cheap) technology. Once a foot hold was established in the market – the performance of the new technology rapidly improved to the point where the big buyers switched. This left the previous big providers to decay into obscurity.

The North Sea oil industry was a pioneer in offshore development and much of the current techniques for long-reach directional drilling, FPSO and sub-sea originated there. With the business opportunity afforded to entrepreneurs by late-life field extensions, now is the time for innovation in how to operate cheaply. On-shore Middle East can produce oil sub $10 / Bbl the Offshore North Sea is $45. It’s time to innovate that gap away. (link):

(OK, I know the figures aren’t that simple due to capex and taxes but the principle stands!).

Image credit: https://jillwallace.com/vignettes/2017/11/8/pimple-on-the-ass-of-elephant

 

 

 

Ocado, where’s my Avocado?

Can Ocado’s warehouse teach oil and gas a trick or two?

Today the BBC carried a story regarding a visit to the semi-automated Ocado warehouse in Andover http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43968495 . It made me think about what their basis of competition was and how this might apply to oil and gas.

Ocado is a company that embraced digitalisation early on, without perhaps realising that they were a leading light in the 4th Industrial Revolution.  What Ocado do is not conceptually difficult to understand. They deliver groceries. The value they deliver to the customer is very like that available from Tesco, Sainsbury and other on-line retailers. So what’s the difference?

There are four elements required to make this business system work:

  1. Establishing a source of supply (things to sell)
  2. A way to get customers to place and pay for orders
  3. Methods for grouping the contents of the warehouse into packages
  4. Efficient delivery from warehouse to end customer

All four areas are ripe for digitalisation to make them more operationally efficient and increase the return on fixed assets.
At first the innovation that Ocado brought was to digitalise the shopping experience. As others have caught up, I think that Ocado has understood that their business model is going to have to compete on efficient order-fulfilment.  Customers don’t care about how that’s done (so long as it is) but other retailers might, and they might be prepared to pay for the service.

To be successful (in the traditional sense) means maximising retained profit in the face of competition. Each of Ocado’s four parts of their operation can be disaggregated and sell services to different customers. This is the classic “value engineering” popularised by Tom Peters and his peers in the 1990s.

Consider one scenario for a moment.  Maybe Ocado should consider if more value for the warehouse comes from the exclusive use by them (because they can charge a premium for their excellent picking), or perhaps they supply capacity to others and capture value by fulfilling orders more cheaply than their “competitors” can. Charging their competitors a fee above their cost.

When they brain-storm their options for this part of their value chain, some things they may consider include:

  • Would making their competitors more reliable hurt their revenue coming from the Ocado website?
  • Would increasing the volume of orders handled increase error rates?
  • If their service suffered and took-down Tesco deliveries, whose reputation would suffer?
  • Would more volume lead to economies of scale and reduced costs, and more profit?
  • Is the way that they develop and use technology in their warehouse patentable? Is it a trade secret, can they license the method to others and help them set up their warehouses?
  • What if someone else offered this service, would they use it or choose to compete?

When the four elements are combined, competition comes from the likes of Sainsbury Online and the Tesco Website and Substitution from a traditional Supermarket. Each of the four main parts of the operation faces different competitors such as: Walmart for efficient sourcing; Ebay for customer experience; Amazon for warehouse management; and FedEx for customer package routing and delivery.

What I find interesting is that the basis for innovation and efficiency is all driven by different aspects of Digitalisation and I4.0, but the opportunity for innovation comes from the vertical integration of the four elements together. One day, the new model will have consolidated around new “digital design patterns” and the window will open for value creation through consolidation, outsourcing and specialisation within the value-chain.

This is a lead-in to my next post which I’m writing where I will consider if the move in the 1990’s to outsource everything “non-core” in oil and gas operators has left the previous generation of leading companies unable to digitally innovate across their value chain. This is because they no longer have the end-to-end knowledge to combine with emerging digital ways of working. If I am right, then future innovation may be driven by new players who have not outsourced their operations to a myriad of subcontractors. Interesting times.

Image credit: https://vivitherapy.com/product/avocado-oil-organic-virgin-1-litre/

 

 

 

 

 

 

Industry 4.0 – Are we there yet?

Something’s up. I was reviewing my web-stats for this site and I found that since Jan 2018 one post has been read 1000’s of more times than any other one. This one: Innovation and Productivity with the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

About 3 years ago,  I started to talk about how relevant to the Oil and gas industry were things I had been studying about the 4th Industrial Revolution. At that time no one had a clue what I was talking about. Some thought I may have gone mad. I’m glad to say that things have (mostly) changed.

Who’s talking about it?

Since 2018 I’ve seen the term being used by a number of my peers in Oil and Gas, and when you search on this and combine with the term “Digitalisation” It becomes obvious that there is a major movement underway.

Steve Ashley uses the term in his article: Digital, data and taking control of our own destiny and its also used in this press release from Petrotechnics.

Today this announcement from CapGemini helping Statoil with a 3 year project to create a digital roadmap.

How to assess a digital project

There are still a few fundamental questions that every digitalisation project should be able to answer. Below is your starter for ten, and – yes – you may confer:

Examine the project value:

  • What is the primary business driver;
  • Does this project fulfil the agenda of the CIO or the COO;
  • What is the net cost of this project;
  • When will I see value (hint: the choice is either this year, or 3-5+ years out); and
  • Is this a platform investment or can it ride a set of network effects?

Examine the project risks:

  • What things will prevent me from realising the planned benefits;
  • How much change will be required in the way we work;
  • If I do this, does it prevent me from doing other things;
  • How likely is it to require more money than I’ve budgeted for; and
  • What happens if I wait and do it later?

These criteria (and others) should be considered for every project.

Enterprise level

At the enterprise level there are a couple more  things that need to be considered including:

  • How does this project fit into my portfolio of digitiallisation initiatives;
  • As my business gets more digitalised, how am I addressing digital integrity; and
  • Should my HSSE function be renamed HSSED?

Further reading

I wrote an article for ITProportal for some of this and here is a note on project portfolio prioritisation that I wrote a few years back – Introduction to Prioritisation V 1.0.

The new CIO – Lessons from Salesforce.com

I’m seeing interesting parallels in the Oil and Gas sector that I first encountered when I witnessed Salesforce.com start be adopted by large corporates over a decade ago. Let me explain.

What is Salesforce.com

Salesforce.com is a company started to provide a way for small businesses to access customer relationship management (CRM) in a structured way. This helped them to co-ordinate sales activities and record information about customers, conversations that had been had between different people across the selling organisation.

Salesforce.com did this by using web-pages rather than software and thus required no software to be installed, and because the information was held in the centre, it was automatically up to date and shared among the staff. In 1999 this was a revolutionary approach.

Salesforce.com now does a lot more than just sales, and is – justifiably – used as a more general information processing platform for companies. One of my clients even runs their entire global finance function using the platform.

The Salesforce.com transition to corporates

Before Salesforce.com the problem of co-ordinating diverse sales teams and sharing CRM sales information was one that was addressed with (say) Siebel. This required an on-premise server at each sales-hub, an application on a lap-top and then some form of roll-up to a central IT system so HQ could see what was happening.

The role of the CIO was clear – gather together a cross section of users, design some screens that may (or may not) mirror the sales process, have them programmed up, check they worked like you had asked for, make a standard install and then go around the world trying to get systems to talk to each other and brow-beat the sales guys into using the software (which they hated). On top of this “senior buy-in” was required to persuade the guys on the front line to change the way they worked until it fitted in with the standard IT system.

This was the old way. The focus was all about getting the blinking technology to work in the first place. Once it did, if you were lucky, you could then outsource the management of the whole cluster f*** to a call centre that “followed the sun”.

Well it was little wonder that in 1999 the dream of shared CRM was out of the reach of small sales-teams (who would often use an odd little product called ACT!), that big company sales guys hated their IT departments, and everyone hated Oracle.

Once Saleforce.com came along everything changed. The application was not installed but was delivered over the web. Because all the data was hosted in the middle, it was naturally synchronised and could be shared. Because it ran on Salesforce.com’s servers there was nothing for the CIO, IT department and the outsource guys to maintain. It was also very easy to use and quick to customise it to tune it to your business.

Small businesses took to Salesforce immediately. It was so much better than what they had before and, function for function, much cheaper. Costs scaled with the number of users and you didn’t have to buy or maintain all manner of servers and network links. It took a while for the big companies to start to “get” Salesforce because the sales pitch had been around the cost of the solution which was very clear cut for small businesses. For big companies however, the benefits when measured with traditional business-cases and the commercial logic of the procurement department did not seem as clear-cut. Add to this that traditional “IT Departments” weren’t set up to contribute to a conversation that didn’t involve “keeping the lights on” IT – it was quite difficult to generate momentum to start with.

The ten-year pause

I worked with Salesforce.com technology and was in the middle of the transition from a world of small companies and independents to major company roll-outs using the help of big consulting firms. It was about 10 years after the SME’s started to jump on the bandwagon that the corporates started to understand and deal with a compelling business case around CRM.

Around the same time that CRM was making inroads to large companies, new technologies were emerging in various “cloud” guises. This included companies like SAP, Microsoft, Oracle or others. Enterprise on-demand platforms were becoming available. But the business case for adopting them was not clear. That was about a decade ago. Now I’m seeing the big-company adoption in oil and gas starting to address the same types of problem I saw Salesforce.com overcome. Perhaps there are lessons that can be drawn?

Make cloud work in 3 areas

In the last decade, the on-demand technology, infrastructure, bandwidth have all improved dramatically. This has made some of the lazy performance objections invalid. Now the centralisation of the technology in cloud and the provision of on-demand pay-as-you use applications, compute, storage and bandwidth just works, and works better than anything a company could do for themselves. And that applies to almost every area of activity.

The three main driving forces then were: a change in structuring budgets, capturing cost of ownership benefits and understanding where value is created within the system; the enablement of entirely new ways of organising core operations; and the role of the CIO.

What’s happend at Salesforce since I last looked?

I tabled these ideas with a senior strategist at Salesforce.com to see what he’d seen in the decade since I sold my SFDC partner business and, to paraphrase, this is what he said:

Well Gareth, in my world I see that CEO’s are very concerned about the potential from disruption led by start-ups who can establish market share quickly. I see this in many industries and in oil and gas you have innovators such as Lord Browne combining smaller companies and driving innovation. CEOs like this need Agility, Flexibility and Speed to enable their business to react. They have tasked their CIO’s to provide tools that their people can use to innovate. The CIO has to find budget for innovation and the only way to do this is to remove legacy run cost from the existing landscape.

Platform’s like Salesforce also lower the cost of innovation by enabling point and click  / low code prototyping etc. However that innovation must be aimed at retiring legacy systems rather than add to the IT stack (and cost). Here, integration is the key. Meta-data driven API’s mean it’s easier to make changes and flex with the business needs across multiple systems.

I’ve also noticed that, since you left, we encountered a new generation of employees who are used to looking out across the web to find information. They are very surprised by how backward many of the corporate IT systems are, and how isolated information is between functions. CIOs who are deploying on-demand platforms simplify IT run and therefore reduce costs. They also have the opportunity to consolidate applications onto a single platform to ease support / dev teams and create a consistent user experience. This saves money, frees information access and makes technology help rather than hinder.

I’ve seen the role of the CIO change in the last decade. It is now to bring technology ideas and options to the table as a business partner for digital. The CIO needs to be aware of what competitors, the market and other parts of the business are doing. However, there is no-such thing as self-adopting application. It is laziness to assume that changing technology will be enough. Some companies still think that if they create a new system then if people use it then that’s great and if they don’t it’s the fault of IT for not delivering a great experience. There is no time for mistakes and we’re just accelerating the rate of change. We need to get it right first time. This means that the COO must lead the change enabled by an IT project and be accountable for its success and responsible for changing the business processes and management around it. The CIO is there to support the business change, not to foist unwanted technology on an unwilling operation.

image credit: http://www.iacloud.com/

Five Digital Vectors

Frameworks for Digitalisation – Part 1

I’ve been working on frameworks that help me describe concepts around Digitalisation in upstream oil and gas. I plan to publish these in several formats but so far I’ve been too busy to do this to my satisfaction – so I’m going to put them out here for comment and then work them up as packaged tools.

This first framework – five digital vectors – is designed to set the context for the strategic intent of a digitalisation initiative. This is important because senior management had better know why they are embarking on programme of change, what they expect to get from it and where threats to it will come from.

I was recently talking to the CEO of a multinational engineering consultancy based in Norway. To slightly protect his identity, I’ll call him Egil.

Egil:  “Gareth, you know [insert Big 4 consultancy here] was just in my office telling me that digitalisation was going to radically alter my business. They said just look what NetFlix did for the video store. It must be important or they wouldn’t be here. But I’m busy and, frankly, I don’t get it”.

Communicating strategic intent is important. I am as guilty as anybody about trotting out tired lines about how digitalisation will disrupt industries and then helpfully pointing out that Uber has no cars, AirBNB no property and Amazon no shops. This may be intriguing but it’s no longer precisely true (as all three are busy making strategic bets in traditional assets), and it’s of very little help if you’re in Oil and Gas wondering how this applies to your business.

Using this Five Digital Vectors framework provides a way to classify the objectives of an initiative, how innovation in the area may cause competitive shifts and explain where to look in order to measure success. There are Five main vectors for digitalisation. They are:

  1. Pure Digital
  2. Digitally Enhanced Products and Services
  3. Digitally Efficient Operations
  4. Digitally Effective Supply Chain
  5. Digital License to Operate

I’ll explain a little about each of these, and then hopefully you’ll get the idea. If you take each in turn you can look for potential disrupters and initiatives and decouple them. Some of these will be more likely to impact your business than others. At least now you can decide which few to concentrate on first.

Vector 1: Pure Digital

Pure Digital strategies work when a product can be codified as information. Think Music, E-books, Films. Once the physical product is removed massive scale economies accrue to storage and distribution. What is called “long-tail” economics kicks in around inventory and specialisation, customisation and choice. In Oil and Gas, we may see some spare parts digitised, emailed and then 3D printed on-site. This will reduce carrying costs and delays. We may also see pure information products trade more freely (such as production forecasting, planning, sub-surface models, training data sets and educated machine-learning algorithms).

Vector 2: Digitally Enhanced Products and Services

Digitally enhanced strategies arise when the fundamental “product” becomes augmented with information. For instance, Uber generates a fair portion of its demand not only on price, but also because it provides information about where the cars are, when they will arrive, the route they take and the price you will pay. They then ease the transaction by collecting payment and supplying receipts. However, all the digitalisation in the world will be useless without the underlying physical product (in this case, a car to take you home). In upstream oil and gas we may see that a supplier of products such as spare parts, services or even crude oil become a preferred option when they supply accompanying information before their wares arrive and when they keep you informed while they are in service.

Vector 3: Digitally Efficient Operations

In oil and gas this is the area where I am witnessing most digitalisation activity.

Using information within your own business to reduce waste and increase accuracy is hardly a new idea, but digitalisation changes the game. As more information becomes available – because of better connections, more sensors and accumulated history – so it becomes possible to change the way you do things. Prioritisation, scheduling, just-in-time: these concepts work better when you can access more information and use it sensibly. Today’s engineers entering the workplace can probably not remember a world that didn’t have an iPhone and Google (Google is almost 20 years old). So, they are used to being able to think of a question and get an answer quickly. If you can harness this creative real-time problem-solving ability (by making information available) you can improve your operations.

Vector 4: Digitally Effective Supply Chain

Both vertically and horizontally there is potential to add value through more efficient exchange. The digitally efficient operation strategy will reduce the waste and hence cost within a single company (see Porter on what it will do for price). Supply chain strategies focus on removing friction between companies so inter-company waste will also reduce. This is, in many ways, a move from Digitally Efficient Operations to Digitally Efficient Industry. It is about expanding the focus from the individual company to the collection of companies.

For this to work requires standards, data compatibility and platforms where buyers and sellers can transact. Some suppliers (think about a stationery company) will supply various industries – say automotive and oil and gas. So eventually some standards will need to be cross industry, whereas others (say for drilling services) won’t be.  Though the benefits can be large, there are two main problems: co-ordination of participants; and allocation of cost and benefit.

Vector 5: Digital License to Operate

This is an interesting insight that came to me when I was discussing the apocryphal case of a town inviting bids from contractors to build a pipeline through it. One bidder offered to expose in real time the contents of the pipe, the corrosion status, inspection procedures and compliance, the leaks and seeps and other such. The other company claimed it was confidential. Guess who got the permission to build.

Whether the information was confidential or whether the quality of it and how to access it was suspect, I don’t know. But we see similar exposure of operational data for services such as trains and busses through simple APIs. This data is then “mashed up” by active citizens for public good to help people plan journeys or avoid breakdowns.

In the future, perhaps it will be a requirement of regulators that operational, safety and environmental data is made available to the public in real-time, if not – then you won’t be allowed to operate your field. Once that data’s out there you can expect to be held to account for your actions. Welcome to CSR in Industry 4.0.

Summary

The five vectors described here help to provide a primary direction for an initiative. For maximum impact, like all good vector mathematics, the magnitude of value delivered will increase as the direction of the vectors align. This tool helps to focus the mind on the primary vector and provides insights to the effect on the others to enable informed choices to be made.

As always, email me direct or leave comments here and I’ll do my best to respond.

Image credit http://www.kimonmatara.com/vector_ops/