Synallagi · Background · Handover · 5 November 2026
The vision behind Synallagi comes into focus in this seemingly obscure topic: an ERP system that captures the substance and detail of the work undertaken throughout oil & gas. Through Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration, Synallagi coordinates that work and the people, capabilities and resources involved, with a single purpose: providing the most profitable means of oil & gas operations, everywhere and always.
Designing Transactions is how Synallagi connects a business purpose with the people, capabilities, authority, resources and accounting necessary to accomplish it. The design establishes what the participants intend to achieve, what each party undertakes to provide, how performance will be established and how the resulting value, costs and obligations will be accounted for. We are designing Synallagi so that these arrangements can carry through into execution, with routine processing performed by computers and professional attention directed to the decisions that require it.
Everything undertaken in Synallagi is focused on providing the most profitable means of oil & gas operations. Transaction design gives that purpose a practical expression. An engineering decision must connect with the authority to act, the capability to perform the work and the financial information needed to evaluate its result. An accounting process must preserve the business meaning of the activity it records. A commercial agreement must remain usable by the people and systems responsible for fulfilling it.
The economic foundation includes Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark’s paper, Where Do Transactions Come From? A Network Design Perspective on the Theory of the Firm. They examine production as a network of tasks and transfers, explaining the additional work required to turn a transfer into a transaction: defining a common basis for what is exchanged, measuring it, establishing its value and arranging compensation. Where these activities can be performed economically influences where transactions can occur.
We apply that reasoning by asking the participants to establish a precise subject of exchange. A unit of service might be an accepted allocation calculation, an inspection or a completed accounting process. An equipment purchase requires an identified configuration and quantity. Each design establishes the evidence of delivery, the agreed valuation and the conditions of compensation. The design must also justify its own complexity: useful divisions of work depend on interfaces that participants can understand and operate economically.
Richard Langlois and Nicolai Foss’s Capabilities and Governance: The Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization adds a complementary perspective. Production depends on specialized knowledge, including knowledge that is difficult to articulate or transfer. Coordinating people who possess different capabilities is itself an economic problem. Their work supports examining the ability to organize productive activity alongside the costs and incentives associated with exchange.
For Synallagi, this means evaluating the complete commercial result of a proposed arrangement. A low administrative cost cannot compensate for unsuitable equipment, unavailable expertise or a poorly coordinated installation. Shared software and reusable designs should reduce repetitive processing costs, while differences in capabilities, timing and coordination will continue to influence profitability. The actual costs and benefits must remain measurable; standardization does not establish that transaction costs will become identical or immaterial in every circumstance.
Friedrich Hayek’s The Use of Knowledge in Society provides another foundation: economically useful knowledge is dispersed among individuals who understand particular circumstances. Coordination depends on enabling them to act on that knowledge and communicate what others need. Synallagi applies this principle through specialization and clearly defined exchanges of information. An accountant, an engineer and a supplier each contribute their own expertise, with sufficient shared information to coordinate their responsibilities.
This is also the relationship between transaction design and Pangea, our Marketplace Interface. Pangea is intended to help people discover capabilities, meet one another, discuss alternatives and form commercial relationships. Its synchronous and asynchronous channels should create opportunities for serendipity and spontaneous order across geographic and organizational distances. Designing Transactions gives participants a practical means to act on what they discover. Useful encounters can develop into agreements whose obligations, authority and performance remain connected.
Transactions is an Organizational Construct within Synallagi. It organizes commitments and their fulfilment across the boundaries of the producer firm, the Joint Operating Committee and the market. The Joint Operating Committee supplies the applicable property context and decision rights. Markets provide access to capabilities and resources. Trust is supported by identifiable responsibilities, evidence and accountability. Transaction design connects these arrangements to the particular work being undertaken.
At the transaction level, an individual Synallagi and an Accounting Voucher are one and the same. This is the complete designed business transaction, retaining its identity as requirements become commitments, work is performed, costs arise and obligations are settled. It can contain or reference many records: agreements, Purchase Orders, Work Orders, Job Orders, inspections, invoices, allocations, accounting entries and payments. Those records contribute to one continuing commercial undertaking.
The Accounting Voucher module provides the Transaction Design Interface through which accountants and the relevant specialists develop reusable business and accounting designs. Engineers and geologists use those capabilities through Pangea to design their particular Synallagi. The accountant establishes the processing and accounting arrangements; the technical specialist configures the requirements and relationships needed to accomplish the work. Suppliers, field personnel, financing participants and other professionals contribute the knowledge and commitments relevant to their responsibilities.
The distinction between a reusable design and an individual transaction is essential. A design can serve many engagements while each transaction retains its own parties, terms, authority, evidence and financial consequences. Each Joint Operating Committee can use common methods without surrendering the particular circumstances of its property or agreements. Improvements to a template require an identifiable version; applying an improvement to an existing transaction requires the appropriate review and authorization.
Consider an engineer purchasing and installing a 10,000-horsepower compressor. A material undertaking which the engineer is responsible for. The final costs may fall within the $15 to $20 million range. The commercial purpose begins with the property requirement and the expected effect on profitable operations. Through Pangea, the engineer can examine an identified equipment configuration, discuss alternatives with the supplier and bring a field specialist or financing representative into the conversation. The resulting design connects the selected equipment with assembly, inspection, transport, installation, commissioning, compensation and continuing obligations. The engineer is delegating his authority to those who are able to bring those skills to the Synallagi. Work Orders and Job Orders are how this is accomplished.
The engineer can include a technical requirement such as the compressor’s orientation relative to the predominant wind where that affects the cooling design. That requirement must connect to the applicable engineering record, installation instruction and acceptance criteria. The graphical or virtual representation helps people understand and discuss the arrangement; the identified specifications and accepted evidence establish what must actually be delivered and installed.
Selecting Purchase against AFE connects the proposal to the applicable Authorization for Expenditure and its approved purpose, amount and conditions. The transaction identifies the person acting, the party represented, the beneficiary and the authority for each consequential decision. A specialist serving several clients retains the correct client context throughout the engagement. Operational financial resources are deployed through Work Order, and field instructions proceed through Industrial Command & Control and the applicable Job Orders.
For this substantial purchase, the configured Purchase Order records the commercial agreement. It can establish assembly deadlines, inspection requirements, shipment and delivery conditions, installation responsibilities, progress payments, holdbacks, warranties and remedies for failure. Purchase Order functionality follows the producer’s adopted configuration. Other transaction classes retain their appropriate agreements and instruments. Research collaboration follows Episteme’s arrangements for contributions, funding, approvals and output rights.
A field agent can participate while the transaction is being designed, agree the scope and timing of an inspection, and subsequently supply the required evidence. The design identifies who may accept that evidence and what the acceptance permits. A failed assembly test holds the shipment or payment that depends on it, while separately authorized site preparation may continue. The affected participants can agree remedial work and any changes to cost or schedule within the same transaction history.
A bank may provide supplier financing, purchaser financing or an undertaking supporting payment. Each arrangement must identify the institution’s actual commitment and its conditions. The design connects these obligations without confusing them: an inspection might support a supplier’s financing draw while a purchaser’s payment remains subject to further performance. Where an authorized settlement uses a stablecoin, the accounting and confirmation requirements must be defined for that method. Confirmation of payment remains distinct from evidence of delivery, acceptance or any required transfer of rights.
Autonomous Asynchronous Transaction Orchestration carries the designed process forward. Autonomous means that eligible work can proceed under established instructions and authority without someone manually initiating every step. Asynchronous means that participants and activities can progress on different timelines. Orchestration coordinates their inputs, obligations, evidence, results and exceptions so that each activity proceeds when its own conditions are satisfied.
This allows commercial progress to be separated from the completion of every related administrative step. Where members of a Joint Operating Committee have reached verbal consensus and the governing arrangements permit conditional processing, invoices, costs and allocations can be prepared or processed while a formal ballot, signature or approval remains outstanding. The missing authority stays visible, the provisional status remains explicit and the transaction advances only within the permission already available. Finalization or payment requiring that outstanding approval waits for it.
The design therefore needs to identify which activities may proceed, which depend on unresolved matters and who must address an exception. Once the required approval or evidence arrives, the process resumes from its recorded position. Progress must survive an interrupted session, a system restart or the replacement of a participant. Repeated messages must not create duplicate commitments, charges or payments. These are requirements for maintaining the commercial integrity of work conducted across organizations and over time.
An individual Synallagi can remain active for three months, six months or longer. It remains one Accounting Voucher throughout its commercial life. Closing an accounting month establishes the financial position for that period while outstanding work, commitments and continuing obligations remain attached to the same transaction. Reusing a design in another engagement and carrying an existing transaction into another month are separate activities.
Period accounting draws on the work performed, accepted evidence, contract terms, invoices and amounts already recognized. A purchase commitment, an advance payment and an incurred cost represent different circumstances. The approved accounting design determines the appropriate treatment. When later invoices or corrected information arrive, they reconcile with existing recognition through the required adjustment. This continuity supports reliable monthly reporting without reconstructing the transaction or counting the same work twice.
Processing can consequently occur throughout the month as information becomes available. Service providers can distribute their work more evenly, investigate exceptions earlier and reduce the accumulation of unresolved items at month-end. The objective is to shorten the interval between economic activity and dependable financial information while preserving the evidence and authority on which that information rests.
The organization of service-provider work follows the same principles. Our user community brings its professional knowledge into the designs, and its independent service-provider organizations perform, supervise and improve their defined services. A process may involve several providers, each responsible for an identifiable contribution. The parties establish the input, work, result, charging basis and evidence required for that contribution.
Consider a Joint Operating Committee producing natural gas and liquids through a processing facility. The relevant designs can connect measured production with production accounting, processing arrangements, sales, royalties, allocations and the applicable provider services. Each process uses the information necessary to perform its work and returns an identifiable result. An agreed, evidenced unit of work supports the associated charge and its attribution to the correct beneficiary and period.
When production ceases, the production-dependent processes and charges cease with it. Any remaining contracted obligation or separately authorized work must be identified on its own basis. This supports the Decentralized Production Model by making the relationship between activity and administrative cost explicit. It also provides a basis for distinguishing the actual work required by different commodities, properties and operating arrangements.
Common designs allow the cost of developing reusable knowledge and software to be shared across many uses. Each engagement retains the costs actually attributable to it and the agreed basis for any shared charges. The licensed Intellectual Property, contribution rights and compensation of the participating service providers must remain identifiable. Reuse creates an opportunity to improve productivity while supporting the organizations responsible for maintaining and advancing the capability.
Transaction design also changes the relationship with the service industry. Suppliers and contractors contribute to the definition of feasible work, evidence and commercial terms. Their technical, field, commercial and accounting contacts should be available to the appropriate participants through the Resource Marketplace. Designing an arrangement together can identify gaps before commitment, reduce conflicting expectations and establish a more dependable basis for performance and payment. Profitable operations require capable counterparties with sustainable commercial arrangements.
Artificial Intelligence can assist throughout this work. It can help locate suitable designs, compare offers, prepare transaction elements, identify missing information, assess progress and bring exceptions to the responsible professional. Conversational access can help a specialist investigate a property’s costs and follow them to the underlying commitments and work. These capabilities operate within the transaction’s established authority, information boundaries and accounting rules.
Where an AI agent has delegated execution authority, that authority must have a defined scope and remain attributable to a responsible party. A recommendation, a proposed amendment and an accepted commitment have different consequences. The transaction must preserve those distinctions and the evidence supporting each action. Participants need to be able to understand, challenge and correct the result, including when a process encounters circumstances its design did not anticipate.
Trust develops through this continuity between responsibility, action and evidence. A participant can establish what was agreed, who had authority, what work occurred, what remains unresolved and how the financial consequences were determined. Each party receives the information appropriate to its role and rights. As we have stated elsewhere, trust does not scale through supervision alone. It scales through architecture.
Business Operations Management provides the supervisory view of this work. The proposed two-screen environment places the Pangea working context alongside the relevant financial information. An engineer or geologist can move from a property’s result to the transactions that explain it, design an authorized response and subsequently examine its technical and financial consequences. Estimates, commitments, actual costs and payments remain identifiable within that view.
This is the basis of Profitable Velocity: the rate at which sound engineering and geological decisions become authorized action and demonstrable commercial results. A specialist may have many transactions progressing across several clients. The system should advance routine authorized work and direct attention to the decisions or exceptions that need the specialist’s expertise. Increasing the volume of activity has value only where it contributes to profitable outcomes.
Those outcomes must inform subsequent decisions. Transaction design connects expenditure, capabilities and performance to the property economics reported for the Joint Operating Committee. Where production is unprofitable, the Decentralized Production Model calls for it to be shut in and the property placed in the inventory of innovative projects. The relevant specialists can then develop the changes necessary to return it to profitable production. Transaction design provides the means to organize, authorize, execute and evaluate that work.
The Petroleum Lease, Resource and Financial Marketplace Modules will apply this common discipline to their distinct subjects of exchange. Property interests, equipment, professional services and financing arrangements each require their own terms, evidence and completion conditions. Pangea provides continuity of interaction, while the responsible modules retain their specialized functions. A single Synallagi can connect contributions from several domains without obscuring their separate obligations.
Our user community must develop and validate the detailed designs that make these relationships operational. That work includes the definitions of services, accounting treatment, permitted conditional processing, authority, compensation, exceptions and recovery. Every design must be tested against the actual circumstances in which the participants work and improved through experience. The architecture establishes the direction; the knowledge of those who perform the work supplies its substance.
Designing Transactions makes the connection between knowledge and profitable action explicit. It gives accountants an active role in designing commercial processes, enables engineers and geologists to organize complete undertakings, and provides service providers with defined contributions and responsibilities. People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and their service-provider organizations are developing these capabilities around one purpose: Synallagi makes oil & gas profitable, everywhere and always.
One area of the Accounting Voucher where the Preliminary Specification is different is the concept of designing transactions. We should spend some time on defining what it is that we’re speaking of. Where accountants will be spending their time in the future is designing transactions and leaving the processing, mostly through automation as a result of the design of the transactions, to the computers. If you’ve been reading the Preliminary Specification you’ll have an understanding of the methods of organization of the marketplace and the producer firm and how the Joint Operating Committee interacts with these. It will be with that understanding that we can begin to understand the concept of designing transactions. So let us begin with a simple description of the transaction's makeup. From Harvard Professors Carliss Baldwin and Kim Clark’s paper “Where do Transactions come from? A Network Design Perspective on the Theory of the Firm.”
...objects that are transacted must be standardized and counted to the mutual satisfaction of the parties involved. Also in a transaction, there must be valuation on both sides and a backward, compensatory transfer - consideration paid by the buyer to the seller. Each of these activities - standardizing, counting, valuing, compensating - adds a new set of tasks and transfers to the overall task and transfer network. Thus it is costly to convert even the simplest transfer into a transaction. p. 15.
Let's use a scenario where a group of producers have several producing wells of natural gas with some liquids production. They are situated next to a large gas plant that processes their gas in exchange for the liquids and markets their gas on the spot market. In this scenario we are evaluating these properties from the perspective of implementing them into the Preliminary Specification. We begin by analyzing the production accounting elements in the Accounting Voucher with the related Production Accounting Service Providers. The Production Accounting Service Providers assess their fees on the basis of a unit of work incurred during the production month for any of the many processes involved and however our user community configures the software during the development of the Preliminary Specification. At each point they’ll assess a fee for their service based on transaction design principles. The transaction designs contained in the Preliminary Specification that our user community developed, provides the automation and the related service provider then goes through their billing process and at the end of the month, when profitable production has invoked that process, produce their invoice for their services to their Joint Operating Committee clients based on the work output rendered. This implies our user community designed their work flow from a transaction design point of view. Professors Baldwin and Clark.
The user and Producer need to deploy knowledge in their own domains, but each needs only a little knowledge about the other's. If labor is divided between two domains and most task-relevant information hidden with each one, then only a few, relatively simple transfers of material, energy and information need to pass between the domains. pp. 17 - 18.
and
Placing a transaction - a shared definition, a means of counting, and a means of payment - at the completed transfer point allows the decentralized magic of the price system to go to work. p.22.
Again if there is no production there is no basis for the Production Accounting Service Providers billing. Fulfilling the Preliminary Specifications decentralized production model objective. This scenario shows how the Production Accounting Service Provider needs to design their transactions to produce the desired result, conduct their service and automate their billings. Additional transactions are designed from the process of gas production, sales of the natural gas, royalties and payment of the processing fee are all similarly designed into the Accounting Voucher. This is the role of the Accounting Voucher for the producer firm and Joint Operating Committee. Automation of the business processes of the innovative oil & gas industry through transaction design. The fact of the existence of production itself is creating an information unit that triggers the appropriate service providers to conduct their operations on the Joint Operating Committees behalf.
The most significant fact about this system is the economy of knowledge with which it operates, or how little the individual participants need to know in order to be able to take the right action. In abbreviated form, by a kind of symbol, only the most essential information is passed on... Frederick Hayek (1945)
The Accounting Voucher has the “Transaction Design Interface” that provides a worksheet for accountants to design transactions. There is a defined process of analysis of how to break down these transactions and we will get into that as we proceed through the development of the Preliminary Specification. It is important to recall at this point that each Accounting Voucher is used as a template for subsequent months. So once a transaction is designed, it will be reused, and built upon through the implementation of it as an Accounting Voucher template providing the automation that is invoked each month of production which is supervised through the service provider organizations.
The role of the Accounting Voucher in determining the source of the market or the firm as the originator of the transaction is minimal. However, it has a role in ensuring the costs of these transactions are minimal and are a source of both the producers, as represented in the Joint Operating Committee and service industries profitable operations. If there was a simple way to describe this purpose of designing transactions it would be as a tool to coordinate the firm or Joint Operating Committees use of the market. This conceptually falls between transaction costs economics, capabilities and transaction design. All three are areas that Professor Richard Langlois has included within his area of research. We have also used Professor Carliss Baldwin for her work in transaction design. Professor Richard Langlois in his paper "Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization."
However, a new approach to economic organization, here called "the capabilities approach," that places production center stage in the explanation of economic organization, is now emerging. We discuss the sources of this approach and its relation to the mainstream economics of organization. p. 1
and
One of our important goals here is to bring the capabilities view more centrally in the ken of economics. We offer it not as a finely honed theory but as a developing area of research whose potential remains relatively untapped. Moreover, we present the capabilities view not as an alternative to the transaction-cost approach but as a complementary area of research. pp. 4.
The Accounting Voucher module of the Preliminary Specifications transaction design takes the accountant away from the benign scorekeeping role to the role of active participant in the operation. One that looks at the market from the point of view of how best to coordinate the various elements and provide the greatest value add to the firm or Joint Operating Committee. In Richard Langlois “Capabilities and Governance: the Rebirth of Production in the Theory of Economic Organization"
A close reading of this passage suggests that Coase's explanation for the emergence of the firm is ultimately a coordination one: the firm is an institution that lowers the costs of qualitative coordination in a world of uncertainty. p. 6.
And this is maybe one of the important considerations of the work that we do here in People, Ideas & Objects, our user community and service providers. Is the realization that each producer firm and each Joint Operating Committee are going to be unique. That due to their makeup they’re going to be different in material ways. Innovation will have a dramatic scale in how it is measured against each firm or Joint Operating Committee. Automation, specialization and the division of labor, other aspects of the changes being imposed on producers will demand a high diversity in terms of their makeup. The approach will be anything but cookie cutter.
Either way it boils down to the same common-sense recognition, namely that individuals - and organizations - are necessarily limited in what they know how to do well. Indeed, the main interest of capabilities view is to understand what is distinctive about firms as unitary, historical organizations of cooperating individuals. p. 13.
Therefore, according to the research of Professor Langlois the transaction costs will be an immaterial item in comparison between firms or Joint Operating Committees. That is to say that they will be the same in all instances. And People, Ideas & Objects have asserted that they will be immaterial due to the application of standardization through Information Technologies. However the differentiating costs between firms and Joint Operating Committees will be these costs of coordinating the market. Making the Accounting Voucher module a critical tool in the ability to offer the producer firm the most profitable means of oil & gas operations.
... while transaction cost consideration undoubtedly explain why firms come into existence, once most production is carried out within firms and most transactions are firm-firm transactions and not factor-factor transactions, the level of transaction costs will be greatly reduced and the dominant factor determining the institutional structure of production will in general no longer be transaction costs but the relative costs of different firms in organizing particular activities. p 16.
We have been discussing the Accounting Vouchers “Transaction Design Interface” and its purpose as a tool to coordinate the use of the market. We want to ensure that the efforts in coordinating the market are consistent with the objectives of the firm or the Joint Operating Committee and don’t conflict with the objectives of those who are initiating the work in the Research & Capabilities or Knowledge & Learning or other modules. As we can see coordination through the Accounting Voucher of the Preliminary Specification is focused on the business end of the transactions, not on the operational side.
The first question that most people will have is why are we concerned with the coordination of the markets in the Accounting Voucher? In a comment made to the editor of Capitalism and Society, Professor Richard N. Langlois wrote this comment in response to an argument made by Professors Giovanni Dosi, Alfonso Gambardella, Marco Grazzi and Luigi Orsonigo (2008).
Here again, I think the problem is one of conceptual imprecision. It is perfectly common, and often unobjectionable, to contrast a market and an organization, that is, to contrast the institution called a market and the institution called an organization (such as, notably, a firm). But the opposite of “organization” in the abstract sense is not “market” but disorganization. More helpfully, the opposite of conscious organization is unplanned or spontaneous coordination. In this sense the market-organization spectrum (and similar spectra one could imagine) are arguably orthogonal to the planned-spontaneous spectrum. One could well wonder, as I have (Langlois 1995), whether large organizations do not in fact grow far more as the unplanned consequence of many individual decisions than as the result of the conscious planning of any individual or small group of individuals. And it is certainly the case that, as Alfred Marshall understood, both firms and markets “are structures for promoting the growth of knowledge, and both require conscious organization” (Loasby 1990, p. 120).
In this day and age, with such large distances, geographic, size, language and other considerations between vendors and producers, leaving the coordination of the markets to “spontaneous order” is asking too much of human ingenuity. Particularly with the focus of the industry to a further division of labor and specialization, where the risk and reward of oil & gas operations are so great, market coordination or transaction design will be a critical and necessary task to be carried out. Each operation may be the result of more people being involved, automation, specialization and the division of labor will have an influence here. Once again it is not from an operations point of view that we are attempting to influence the operation, it is from the business point of view. How will the transactions and business be captured in such a manner that the firm and Joint Operating Committee are incurring the lowest possible costs of the most efficient methods of these business transactions? From Professor Richard Langlois Economic Institutions and the Boundaries of the Firm: The Case of Business Groups."
As Harvey Leibenstein long ago pointed out, economic growth is always a process of “gap-filling,” that is, of supplying the missing links in the evolving chain of complementary inputs to production. Especially in a developed and well functioning economy, one with what I like to call market-supporting institutions (Langlois 2003), such gap-filling can often proceed in important part through the “spontaneous” action of more-or-less anonymous markets. In other times and places, notably in less-developed economies or in sectors of developed economies undergoing systemic change, gap-filling requires other forms of organization — more internalized and centrally coordinated forms. p. 6.
and
Let’s take a closer look at the nature of the “gaps” involved. Adam Smith tells us in the first sentence of The Wealth of Nations that what accounts for “the greatest improvement in the productive power of labor” is the continual subdivision of that labor (Smith 1776, I.i.1). Growth in the extent of the market makes it economical to specialize labor to tasks and tools, which increases productivity – and productivity is the real wealth of nations. As the benefits of the resulting increases in per capita output find their way into the pockets of consumers, the extent of the market expands further, leading to additional division of labor – and so on in a self-reinforcing process of organizational change and learning (Richardson 1975; Young 1928). p. 7.
We’ve seen over the course of the past number of decades that the speed and capacity for change by producer firms is poor. People, Ideas & Objects have asserted this is attributable to the bureaucrats desire to maintain low levels of accountability through poor ERP systems. Today organizations are defined and supported by software, and most particularly their ERP software, and they are therefore constrained by them. The Preliminary Specification has chosen the market to deal with this issue as opposed to cultural difficulties of change and historical performance of the firm as the other choice. There needs to be a means in which to affect a new trajectory in the performance of the producer firms and it is automation, specialization and the division of labor which is the only proven method to build any economic value since 1776. This can best be accessed through the market which provides the added benefit of disrupting the producer firms bureaucratic culture. A culture that is counter to profitability and one that must be dismantled. The addition of transaction cost economics and these tools will augment the ability to enhance the transition and facilitate the performance trajectory necessary to achieve profitable energy independence in North America.
In the determination of the firm or market as a choice for the producer firms to use as the means of production, the question in oil & gas is academic. The geographic and technical diversity necessary to operate within the North American oil & gas marketplace, on the basis of the many levels and types of operations a producer could specialize upon, even in today’s market. The answer has and always will be the market. There is significant conflict and contradiction in the relationship between producers and the service industry as a result of the treatment the service industry has been subjected to over the past number of decades. It is suggested the producers will need to make a deliberate effort to remediate and rebuild the capabilities and capacities that are necessary in order to provide profitable energy independence in North America.
The starting point of this rebuilding process for our user community is as follows. If we recall in the Resource Marketplace module the vendors and suppliers are maintaining their own contact data. Within that data is their key personnel that include their field staff. They should also be including their key business personnel for the purposes of the “Transaction Design Interface” to collaborate on these interfaces. In addition, their billing information and banking data, as well as other critical data and information that will help the producer firm or Joint Operating Committee efficiently coordinate and process the transactions they’re involved in. Lastly a collaborative interface should be provided for everyone within the Accounting Vouchers vendor pool to discuss how the transaction is designed and the template that is used by the specific vendor. Needless to say the involvement of our development of software for the service industry will begin here. Please see the Implementation page of this wiki to review the budget and more of the details.