iso14000-digest Tuesday, February 9 1999 Volume 02 : Number 046
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 01:08:39 -0600
From: Suzanne Bell
Subject: Call for Papers - Behavioral Safety Now 1999
- --=====================_47981860==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>>
>>
>> Call For Papers
>> Don't Wait for Y2K - Behavioral Safety Now
>>
>> Featuring:
>> Scott Geller, Aubrey Daniels, Tom Krause, David Terheune, Gene Ernest,Terry
>> McSween
>>
>> The Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies and Quality Safety Edge
>> invite you to present at the Behavioral Safety Now Conference
>>
>> Tuesday, October 5 - Friday, October 8, 1999
>> Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas
>>
>> Proceeds from this conference support the Cambridge Center for Behavioral
>> Studies and promote research in Behavioral Safety.
>>
>> The Behavioral Safety Now Conference was founded in 1996 to promote the
>> understanding and use of Behavioral Safety. The conference provides a forum
>> for all those interested in Behavioral Safety with educational workshops by
>> leading experts, keynotes by the pioneers, informative presentations, and
>> exciting networking and discussion opportunities.
>>
>> Presenters
>> Users of Behavioral Safety technology - safety professionals, managers, and
>> Behavioral Safety team members as well as researchers, consultants, and
>> other interested and qualified people are invited to deliver presentations.
>> All presenters receive a reduced registration rate.
>>
>> Audience
>> Your audience will include people from all levels and functions within many
>> types of organizations and industries. Some registrants are considering
>> Behavioral Safety for the first time, others are seeking solutions to
>> challenges within their established process. Many people attend the
>> conference simply to talk to others involved in Behavioral Safety and hear
>> ideas on improving and expanding their process.
>>
>> Information
>> If you are interested in sharing your experience and knowledge this year,
>> please call or email Grainne Matthews, Program Chair at 713 807 1112 or
>> mailto:grainneam@sprynet.com or visit http://www.hsegroup.com/bsn/bsn99.htm
>>
>> Call for papers can be downloaded directly from
>> http://www.hsegroup.com/bsn/text/call.htm
>>
>> Deadline for Proposals is May 31, 1999
>>
>> Past Conference Participants:
>> Aluminum Company of America, Amoco, Argonaut, Bayer, Castrol,
>> Champion International, Chevron, Cigna, Citgo, Conrail, Corning Asahi,
>> Du Pont, Equistar, FMC Corporation, Georgia Pacific, Hercules, ICI Paints,
>> International Paper, Jefferson Smurfit, Lyondell Chemical, Montell, National
>> Steel & Shipbuilding, Solutia, Tamko Roofing, Tenneco Packaging, Dow
>> Chemical, Goodyear
>> ********************************************************
>> And More Including You!
>>
>> Sponsors currently include:
>>
>> Behavioral Science Technology, Inc.
>> Aubrey Daniels and Associates, Inc.
>> Safety Performance Solutions, Inc.
>> Cigna Property and Casualty Insurance
>> FMC Corporation
>> Industrial Safety and Hygiene Magazine
>>
>>
>>
>> *************************************************
>> Suzanne Bell
>> Conference Coordinator
>> Behavioral Safety Now
>> October 5 - 8th, 1999
>> Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas
>> mailto:bsn@hsegroup.com
>> http://www.hsegroup.com/bsn/bsn99.htm
>> 1 + (281) 497-8288
>> *************************************************
>
- --=====================_47981860==_.ALT
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Call For Papers
Don't Wait for Y2K - Behavioral Safety Now
Featuring:
Scott Geller, Aubrey Daniels, Tom Krause, David Terheune, Gene
Ernest,Terry McSween
The Cambridge Center for Behavioral Studies and Quality Safety Edge
invite you to present at the Behavioral Safety Now Conference
Tuesday, October 5 - Friday, October 8, 1999
Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas
Proceeds from this conference support the Cambridge Center for
Behavioral Studies and promote research in Behavioral Safety.
The Behavioral Safety Now Conference was founded in 1996 to
promote the understanding and use of Behavioral Safety. The conference
provides a forum for all those interested in Behavioral Safety with
educational workshops by leading experts, keynotes by the pioneers,
informative presentations, and exciting networking and discussion
opportunities.
Presenters
Users of Behavioral Safety technology - safety professionals,
managers, and Behavioral Safety team members as well as researchers,
consultants, and other interested and qualified people are invited to
deliver presentations. All presenters receive a
reduced registration rate.
Audience
Your audience will include people from all levels and functions
within many types of organizations and industries. Some registrants are
considering Behavioral Safety for the first time, others are seeking
solutions to challenges within their established process. Many people
attend the conference simply to talk to others involved in Behavioral
Safety and hear ideas on improving and expanding their process.
Information
If you are interested in sharing your experience and knowledge this
year, please call or email Grainne Matthews, Program Chair at 713
807 1112 or
mailto:grainneam@sprynet.com
or visit http://www.hsegroup.com/bsn/bsn99.htm
Call for papers can be downloaded directly from http://www.hsegroup.com/bsn/text/call.htm
Deadline for Proposals is May 31, 1999
Past Conference Participants:
Aluminum Company of America, Amoco, Argonaut, Bayer, Castrol,
Champion International, Chevron, Cigna, Citgo, Conrail, Corning Asahi,
Du Pont, Equistar, FMC Corporation, Georgia Pacific, Hercules, ICI Paints, International Paper, Jefferson Smurfit, Lyondell Chemical, Montell, National Steel & Shipbuilding, Solutia, Tamko Roofing, Tenneco Packaging, Dow Chemical, Goodyear
********************************************************
And More Including You!
Sponsors currently include:
Behavioral Science Technology, Inc.
Aubrey Daniels and Associates, Inc.
Safety Performance Solutions, Inc.
Cigna Property and Casualty Insurance
FMC Corporation
Industrial Safety and Hygiene Magazine
*************************************************
Suzanne Bell
Conference Coordinator
Behavioral Safety Now
October 5 - 8th, 1999
Riviera Hotel, Las Vegas
mailto:bsn@hsegroup.com
http://www.hsegroup.com/bsn/bsn99.htm
1 + (281) 497-8288
*************************************************
- --=====================_47981860==_.ALT--
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 09:08:14 -0500
From: "Connie G. Ritzert"
Subject: The software debate
After reading some of the arguments on this subject recently, I have a
few comments for the person who originally made an inquiry (sorry - I lost
the original e-mail, so I don't have a name.) Software is a tool - only a
tool - and like any other tool, it must be selected carefully to fit the
purpose and used by competent people. (the old warning not to use a chain
saw when you need a scalpel). Software for ISO 14001 is essentially the
same as any other "tool" focused on a particular subject matter. If you
have general tools that work well for you ( a good all-round information
management and planning software, for example) , there is probably no
reason to add a specific ISO 14001 software package, because the EMS does
not require any unusual computations or data management functions - just
common operations. If you don't have a good general software package, the
choice might be between the specialized version for ISO 14001 or a good
general package that you could use for multiple purposes.
If an ISO 14001 software package is compatible with your other systems and
saves you some time in putting information into the right categories, it
may be a good deal. Be careful to check to see that the software is
consistent with ISO 14001 requirements - don't assume that it is. In some
cases, the ISO 14001 software is primarily a training aid, and if it is a
good one, then that may be a good bet. However, the danger is in those
situations where the ISO 14001 software is used as a fill-in-the-blank
method of designing your EMS. The software should support your design,
implementation, and / or operation of the EMS - it should not be the
driver. It's a tool & you shouldn't let a tool make your decisions.
Connie Glover Ritzert critzert@fyi.net
Meredith-EMC environmental management consulting
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 10:05:50 -0800
From: "Rendt-Scott, Soncera H. (SREN)"
Subject: RE: Software for ISO 14001 implementation
7/12/2001: [exact wording removed at poster's request]
[gist was a speculation that there may be unscrupulous software
companies that release products that are incomplete or inadequately
tested, turning the end-users/customers into "developers"]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: richard@frey.demon.co.uk [SMTP:richard@frey.demon.co.uk]
> Sent: Sunday, February 07, 1999 8:47 AM
> To: ISO 14001 discussion group
> Subject: Software for ISO 14001 implementation
>
>
> Mr Braverman's encomium would seem to support the proposition that
> companies should make good use of information. This is a difficult
> proposition to argue against, in principle at least, and it's lucky for
> me that I was not attempting to do so.
>
> What I _was_ arguing against was the use of specialised software for
> managing an ISO 14001 implementation. In addition to word processors and
> graphics, I will grudgingly concede spreadsheets and e-mailers can be
> useful, but nothing much beyond that.
>
> I will admit to being slightly bitter and twisted in this regard, having
> twice seen major companies make expensive mistakes with grossly over-sold
> and inappropriate software, and then been lumbered with making the damn
> things fit company systems.
>
> As it happens, neither package was for ISO 14001 implementation, one
> being for chemical health and safety management, the other for data
> handling and analysis. However, it was the striking similarities between
> their marketing, adaptation and eventual abandonment rather than the
> differences in technical objective which I found instructive when the
> marketing of ISO 14001 software began.
>
> Essentially, my belief is that there is little or nothing in an effective
> ISO 14001 implementation project which cannot be done better and more
> cheaply on paper or with generic software.
>
> Best wishes,
>
>
> Richard Frey
>
>
>
>
>
> >Subject: Re: Fwd: ISO 14001 software
> >Sent: 2/2/1919 1:43 PM
> >Received: 7/2/1999 3:29 PM
> >From: HY BRAVERMAN, braveman@ziplink.net
> >To: Apricot458@aol.com
> >CC: iso14000@quality.org
> >
> >You are all right, the answer is somewhere in your organization:
> >
> >I look at the issue from the perspective that if an organization is in
> >business to make widgets, they need to know the who, what where and when
> >to buy the raw materials, they need to know how they are produced and
> >the cost. A sales organization goes out and sells it.
> >
> >In the grand scheme of things, does not the organization have to have an
> >information architecture? Don't they need to know the feeds and speeds
> >of their manufacturing processes. With all that goes on inside an
> >organization the adopted model is of a fiefdom. Each one with it's own
> >management, rules and tariffs between departments, raising the cost of
> >doing business. This feudal structure is non competitive, and a long
> >term design for failure.
> >
> >Today valuable information rots inside some computer because no one
> >wants or does not know how to use it. Missed customers requirements,
> >shoddy services and ineffective management going to slow to meet the
> >changing market needs.
> >
> >The new speed of business requires action and not analysis paralysis.
> >They need to be fast enough to change a fan belt while the enginbe is
> >running.
> >
> >The way to get and use information and transform it to useful knowledge
> >is inside your organization, the will and insight is the responsibility
> >of management to commit to action. Once you have that, you will be able
> >to lift the roof off the organization and look down to see how
> >everything works and what it will take to not produce pollution. Then
> >the information sources and destinations can contain the knowledge to be
> >competitive and clean at the same time they are being profitable.
> >
> >Don't forget to leave the egos outside, business is business not a
> >populatity contest. Management ego and stubborness are great, but they
> >are also cause for many business failures.
> >
> >Hy Braverman
> >
> >>Apricot458@aol.com wrote:
> >
> >> Subject: Re: ISO 14001 software
> >> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:00:58 EST
> >> From: Apricot458@aol.com
> >> To: rob@greenware.com
> >>
> >> I agree with Robert that I would rather not re-invent the wheel...if
> there
> is
> >> a basic package available that I can tailor to my needs, all the
> better.
> >> Richard was right, though, that too many software packages do not meet
> the
> >> majority of needs for industry specific companies, such as lumber mills
> (as
> >in
> >> the case of SARA), and often promise much more than they can deliver.
> It is
> >> best to know the requirements of a standard so well that one does not
> need a
> >> pre-packaged software assistance.
> >>
> >> Regards, 'Cera
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 19:02:58 -0500
From: Bill Schillaci
Subject: Re: Software for ISO 14001 implementation
Hi:
I just joined this list server about a week ago, and I^Òm already enjoying the
dialogs. Here^Òs my thoughts on management software.
No one should expect that imposing packaged software on a complex organizational
system that has developed (probably piece by piece by many individuals and
departments and in a non-linear fashion over years) is going to result in
instant clarity of vision where there had been blurriness, efficiency where
there had been gnashing gears (and teeth), and internal cooperation where there
had been rivalries. This will be the case even if the software comes in dozens
of modules, is exorbitantly costly and high tech, and is accompanied by promises
of undying technical support from the vendor.
Professional staff still have trouble getting their arms around some of the most
basic concepts of environmental management (e.g., a rudimentary breakdown of the
chemical relationship between raw materials inputs and waste releases). While a
software may make the calculation easier, it will be useless if the purchasing
department is not compelled by strict corporate rules to compare numbers with
those in charge of disposal.
The best time to install such a software is when the company first opens its
doors for business ^Ö not a useful piece of advice for most existing businesses.
As an alternative, I believe the best approach is gradual integration with
modules. Start first with points of least resistance, inventory perhaps; or
perhaps on the personal level, that is, those in the environmental cycle who
seem most desirous of change. Prove that the product works, and then introduce
the next modules.
Having said this, I must add that I am not sure how "modular" EMS software is
nowadays or how receptive providers are to selling their products in bits and
pieces.
But I can say (with some background in accounting packages) that any thinking
that expects a flashy software system to accomplish miracles without 99.9
percent human commitment is a recipe for slow death. Also having someone on
hand who can re-program is useless if that person is 110 percent obligated to
performing pre-existing work. That's my experience, anyway.
Bill Schillaci
Business and Legal Reports
Rendt-Scott, Soncera H. (SREN) wrote:
>
7/12/2001: [exact wording removed at poster's request]
[gist was a speculation that there may be unscrupulous software
companies that release products that are incomplete or inadequately
tested, turning the end-users/customers into "developers"]
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: richard@frey.demon.co.uk [SMTP:richard@frey.demon.co.uk]
> > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 1999 8:47 AM
> > To: ISO 14001 discussion group
> > Subject: Software for ISO 14001 implementation
> >
> >
> > Mr Braverman's encomium would seem to support the proposition that
> > companies should make good use of information. This is a difficult
> > proposition to argue against, in principle at least, and it's lucky for
> > me that I was not attempting to do so.
> >
> > What I _was_ arguing against was the use of specialised software for
> > managing an ISO 14001 implementation. In addition to word processors and
> > graphics, I will grudgingly concede spreadsheets and e-mailers can be
> > useful, but nothing much beyond that.
> >
> > I will admit to being slightly bitter and twisted in this regard, having
> > twice seen major companies make expensive mistakes with grossly over-sold
> > and inappropriate software, and then been lumbered with making the damn
> > things fit company systems.
> >
> > As it happens, neither package was for ISO 14001 implementation, one
> > being for chemical health and safety management, the other for data
> > handling and analysis. However, it was the striking similarities between
> > their marketing, adaptation and eventual abandonment rather than the
> > differences in technical objective which I found instructive when the
> > marketing of ISO 14001 software began.
> >
> > Essentially, my belief is that there is little or nothing in an effective
> > ISO 14001 implementation project which cannot be done better and more
> > cheaply on paper or with generic software.
> >
> > Best wishes,
> >
> >
> > Richard Frey
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >Subject: Re: Fwd: ISO 14001 software
> > >Sent: 2/2/1919 1:43 PM
> > >Received: 7/2/1999 3:29 PM
> > >From: HY BRAVERMAN, braveman@ziplink.net
> > >To: Apricot458@aol.com
> > >CC: iso14000@quality.org
> > >
> > >You are all right, the answer is somewhere in your organization:
> > >
> > >I look at the issue from the perspective that if an organization is in
> > >business to make widgets, they need to know the who, what where and when
> > >to buy the raw materials, they need to know how they are produced and
> > >the cost. A sales organization goes out and sells it.
> > >
> > >In the grand scheme of things, does not the organization have to have an
> > >information architecture? Don't they need to know the feeds and speeds
> > >of their manufacturing processes. With all that goes on inside an
> > >organization the adopted model is of a fiefdom. Each one with it's own
> > >management, rules and tariffs between departments, raising the cost of
> > >doing business. This feudal structure is non competitive, and a long
> > >term design for failure.
> > >
> > >Today valuable information rots inside some computer because no one
> > >wants or does not know how to use it. Missed customers requirements,
> > >shoddy services and ineffective management going to slow to meet the
> > >changing market needs.
> > >
> > >The new speed of business requires action and not analysis paralysis.
> > >They need to be fast enough to change a fan belt while the enginbe is
> > >running.
> > >
> > >The way to get and use information and transform it to useful knowledge
> > >is inside your organization, the will and insight is the responsibility
> > >of management to commit to action. Once you have that, you will be able
> > >to lift the roof off the organization and look down to see how
> > >everything works and what it will take to not produce pollution. Then
> > >the information sources and destinations can contain the knowledge to be
> > >competitive and clean at the same time they are being profitable.
> > >
> > >Don't forget to leave the egos outside, business is business not a
> > >populatity contest. Management ego and stubborness are great, but they
> > >are also cause for many business failures.
> > >
> > >Hy Braverman
> > >
> > >>Apricot458@aol.com wrote:
> > >
> > >> Subject: Re: ISO 14001 software
> > >> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:00:58 EST
> > >> From: Apricot458@aol.com
> > >> To: rob@greenware.com
> > >>
> > >> I agree with Robert that I would rather not re-invent the wheel...if
> > there
> > is
> > >> a basic package available that I can tailor to my needs, all the
> > better.
> > >> Richard was right, though, that too many software packages do not meet
> > the
> > >> majority of needs for industry specific companies, such as lumber mills
> > (as
> > >in
> > >> the case of SARA), and often promise much more than they can deliver.
> > It is
> > >> best to know the requirements of a standard so well that one does not
> > need a
> > >> pre-packaged software assistance.
> > >>
> > >> Regards, 'Cera
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 08:31:01 +0800
From: fcm
Subject: To all ISO14000net
Hello everybody,
Thanks a lot for your great opinion and experiences in my software inquiry...
I feel that all of you are right and this is just giving opinion and idea only.
Let me introduce myself first...I'm Adam Salan work with FUJITSU COMPONENT (M) SDN.BHD in Parit Raja,Batu Pahat Johor
MALAYSIA. My title in this company is Environmental Executive and fully in-charge in ISO14000 implementation. We already achieve ISO 14001 cert. in July 1998 and within least a year of implementation I feel a lot of space in improvement of EMS.
One of the weakness is collecting a data and making a record. However I make it manually (filing) and for sure some information missing. To improved our EMS our management feel to use a software to track a record and good filing system.
I believe that many software not fulfill our requirement and constrain the flexibility of the uses. But I intend to make deal with software developer together create what my company need(integrated with ISO 9000 requirement).This will overcome most of the
problem but I must think the cost. I expect that the cost very high. Is it truth??
I also want to highlight a problem that I face. As EMR of the company, I wrote the audit procedure and to meet independence in audit policy, I cannot be an internal auditor of the company...Question: If I co-ordinate the internal audit (arrange schedule ,
select team, scope and objective) is it independence? If other internal auditors audit my section (Environmental Room) is it independence??
Thank You And please give your opinion.
Adam Salan
Executive
Environmental Room
FUJITSU COMPONENT (M) SDN.BHD
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 08 Feb 1999 21:06:45 -0800
From: "Markku 'Mark' J. Saarelainen"
Subject: Re: To all ISO14000net
At 08:31 AM 2/9/99 +0800, you wrote:
>I believe that many software not fulfill our requirement and constrain the
flexibility of the uses. But I intend to make deal with software developer
together create what my company need(integrated with ISO 9000
requirement).This will overcome most of the problem but I must think the
cost. I expect that the cost very high. Is it truth??
>
I depends very much on your local development costs. I would suggest that
you make some type of make/buy analysis with some investment period.
>I also want to highlight a problem that I face. As EMR of the company, I
wrote the audit procedure and to meet independence in audit policy, I
cannot be an internal auditor of the company...Question: If I co-ordinate
the internal audit (arrange schedule , select team, scope and objective) is
it independence? If other internal auditors audit my section
(Environmental Room) is it independence??
Although you may have written the audit procedure, it does not prevent you
from implementing it in those specific functions and processes that you are
not responsible for. So basically, if you do not control a specific
process, you can audit this process as long as you are qualified to do so.
I hope that this helped.
Best regards,
Mark
- ------------------------------------------------------------------
Markku 'Mark' J. Saarelainen
Email: waeg@ix.netcom.com
E-commerce River: http://pweb.netcom.com/~waeg/eriver.htm
DISCLAIMER:
No thought written in this message is a statement
of any organization by which I am employed or for
which I work.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 14:23:37 -0000
From: "Pete Thomas"
Subject: Software for Life Cycle Assessment
As part of our EMS we are looking to implement some form of LCA for our
products. We are looking to use commercialy available software systems as a
basis for this. We are in the plastics processing business based in the UK.
Any recomendations from people who have had experience with any of the
systems on offer would be greatly appreciated
Pete Thomas
Marley Floors and Waterproofing Ltd
Dickley Lane
Lenham
Kent ME17 2DE
UK
Opinions expressed are my own and are not necessarily shared by my employer
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-iso14000@quality.org [mailto:owner-iso14000@quality.org]On
> Behalf Of Bill Schillaci
> Sent: 09 February 1999 00:03
> To: iso14000@quality.org
> Subject: Re: Software for ISO 14001 implementation
>
>
> Hi:
>
> I just joined this list server about a week ago, and I^Òm already
> enjoying the
> dialogs. Here^Òs my thoughts on management software.
>
> No one should expect that imposing packaged software on a complex
> organizational
> system that has developed (probably piece by piece by many individuals and
> departments and in a non-linear fashion over years) is going to result in
> instant clarity of vision where there had been blurriness,
> efficiency where
> there had been gnashing gears (and teeth), and internal
> cooperation where there
> had been rivalries. This will be the case even if the software
> comes in dozens
> of modules, is exorbitantly costly and high tech, and is
> accompanied by promises
> of undying technical support from the vendor.
>
> Professional staff still have trouble getting their arms around
> some of the most
> basic concepts of environmental management (e.g., a rudimentary
> breakdown of the
> chemical relationship between raw materials inputs and waste
> releases). While a
> software may make the calculation easier, it will be useless if
> the purchasing
> department is not compelled by strict corporate rules to compare
> numbers with
> those in charge of disposal.
>
> The best time to install such a software is when the company
> first opens its
> doors for business ^Ö not a useful piece of advice for most
> existing businesses.
>
> As an alternative, I believe the best approach is gradual integration with
> modules. Start first with points of least resistance, inventory
> perhaps; or
> perhaps on the personal level, that is, those in the
> environmental cycle who
> seem most desirous of change. Prove that the product works, and
> then introduce
> the next modules.
>
> Having said this, I must add that I am not sure how "modular" EMS
> software is
> nowadays or how receptive providers are to selling their products
> in bits and
> pieces.
>
> But I can say (with some background in accounting packages) that
> any thinking
> that expects a flashy software system to accomplish miracles without 99.9
> percent human commitment is a recipe for slow death. Also having
> someone on
> hand who can re-program is useless if that person is 110 percent
> obligated to
> performing pre-existing work. That's my experience, anyway.
>
> Bill Schillaci
> Business and Legal Reports
>
>
> Rendt-Scott, Soncera H. (SREN) wrote:
>
7/12/2001: [exact wording removed at poster's request]
[gist was a speculation that there may be unscrupulous software
companies that release products that are incomplete or inadequately
tested, turning the end-users/customers into "developers"]
>
>
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: richard@frey.demon.co.uk [SMTP:richard@frey.demon.co.uk]
> > > Sent: Sunday, February 07, 1999 8:47 AM
> > > To: ISO 14001 discussion group
> > > Subject: Software for ISO 14001 implementation
> > >
> > >
> > > Mr Braverman's encomium would seem to support the proposition that
> > > companies should make good use of information. This is a difficult
> > > proposition to argue against, in principle at least, and it's
> lucky for
> > > me that I was not attempting to do so.
> > >
> > > What I _was_ arguing against was the use of specialised software for
> > > managing an ISO 14001 implementation. In addition to word
> processors and
> > > graphics, I will grudgingly concede spreadsheets and e-mailers can be
> > > useful, but nothing much beyond that.
> > >
> > > I will admit to being slightly bitter and twisted in this
> regard, having
> > > twice seen major companies make expensive mistakes with
> grossly over-sold
> > > and inappropriate software, and then been lumbered with
> making the damn
> > > things fit company systems.
> > >
> > > As it happens, neither package was for ISO 14001 implementation, one
> > > being for chemical health and safety management, the other for data
> > > handling and analysis. However, it was the striking
> similarities between
> > > their marketing, adaptation and eventual abandonment rather than the
> > > differences in technical objective which I found instructive when the
> > > marketing of ISO 14001 software began.
> > >
> > > Essentially, my belief is that there is little or nothing in
> an effective
> > > ISO 14001 implementation project which cannot be done better and more
> > > cheaply on paper or with generic software.
> > >
> > > Best wishes,
> > >
> > >
> > > Richard Frey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >Subject: Re: Fwd: ISO 14001 software
> > > >Sent: 2/2/1919 1:43 PM
> > > >Received: 7/2/1999 3:29 PM
> > > >From: HY BRAVERMAN, braveman@ziplink.net
> > > >To: Apricot458@aol.com
> > > >CC: iso14000@quality.org
> > > >
> > > >You are all right, the answer is somewhere in your organization:
> > > >
> > > >I look at the issue from the perspective that if an
> organization is in
> > > >business to make widgets, they need to know the who, what
> where and when
> > > >to buy the raw materials, they need to know how they are produced and
> > > >the cost. A sales organization goes out and sells it.
> > > >
> > > >In the grand scheme of things, does not the organization
> have to have an
> > > >information architecture? Don't they need to know the feeds
> and speeds
> > > >of their manufacturing processes. With all that goes on inside an
> > > >organization the adopted model is of a fiefdom. Each one
> with it's own
> > > >management, rules and tariffs between departments, raising
> the cost of
> > > >doing business. This feudal structure is non competitive, and a long
> > > >term design for failure.
> > > >
> > > >Today valuable information rots inside some computer because no one
> > > >wants or does not know how to use it. Missed customers requirements,
> > > >shoddy services and ineffective management going to slow to meet the
> > > >changing market needs.
> > > >
> > > >The new speed of business requires action and not analysis paralysis.
> > > >They need to be fast enough to change a fan belt while the enginbe is
> > > >running.
> > > >
> > > >The way to get and use information and transform it to
> useful knowledge
> > > >is inside your organization, the will and insight is the
> responsibility
> > > >of management to commit to action. Once you have that, you
> will be able
> > > >to lift the roof off the organization and look down to see how
> > > >everything works and what it will take to not produce
> pollution. Then
> > > >the information sources and destinations can contain the
> knowledge to be
> > > >competitive and clean at the same time they are being profitable.
> > > >
> > > >Don't forget to leave the egos outside, business is business not a
> > > >populatity contest. Management ego and stubborness are
> great, but they
> > > >are also cause for many business failures.
> > > >
> > > >Hy Braverman
> > > >
> > > >>Apricot458@aol.com wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Subject: Re: ISO 14001 software
> > > >> Date: Sat, 6 Feb 1999 14:00:58 EST
> > > >> From: Apricot458@aol.com
> > > >> To: rob@greenware.com
> > > >>
> > > >> I agree with Robert that I would rather not re-invent the
> wheel...if
> > > there
> > > is
> > > >> a basic package available that I can tailor to my needs, all the
> > > better.
> > > >> Richard was right, though, that too many software packages
> do not meet
> > > the
> > > >> majority of needs for industry specific companies, such as
> lumber mills
> > > (as
> > > >in
> > > >> the case of SARA), and often promise much more than they
> can deliver.
> > > It is
> > > >> best to know the requirements of a standard so well that
> one does not
> > > need a
> > > >> pre-packaged software assistance.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards, 'Cera
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 11:46:44 -0500
From: "rob"
Subject: [none]
Hello Adam and group:
You know best as to whether or not a customized piece of software is for
your company, but I'd recommend taking into consideration some of my
comments below as you make your decision.There are some general rules about
customized software:
1. The cost will be high:
- - because the software is customized the company performing the development
for you cannot achieve economies of scale on the development work and
therefore your company will bear the full cost of development. The largest
cost for this is obviously the labour which will include at least 2 people -
one to interact with the client and manage the development and one
programmer to actually develop the software based on the clients
specifications. In the years which follow the developed software, the costs
also remain high for the development company because they must offer
technical support on a specialized piece of software and therefore they have
a continued cost. This must be mitigated with annual fees from the client in
order to be profitable and have positive cashflows. The more specialized
software developed the greater the costs. Also, the documentation for a
specialized piece of software by the development company must be EXTREMELY
GOOD if the continued support of the client is to continue over the life
span of the product and to be able to update the software for new technology
as it appears.
2. Falling behind technological advances:
- - One of the most fundamental problems with customized software is that each
piece of it runs on a different "track" while standardized software
applications run on the same track. Once a company develops or has a piece
of software developed for them they run the risk, a very high risk actually,
of falling behind on technology. The reason being is that as technology
advances, the customized piece of software cannot take advantage of it
because it was programmed based on "old code" and ideas. To take advantage
of new technology with a specialized piece of software, the company in
question has to re-enter the customization phase once again. See my comments
in section 1 because this effectively repeats that cycle. To make an
effective decision in this area you have to look at software for what it
really is and has become because of costs of production and software's
predominant use in society today: software is a standardized commodity.
Buying a piece of software is not much different from buying a refrigerator,
a car or a litre of milk. Would you ask Ford to design a car specifically
for your company? Of course not. Parts and repairs would be extremely costly
if not impossible. However, the biggest problem in this area is that
eventhough you may never want to change the customized system and are
perfectly happy with it, you may have to due to influences you have no
control over i.e. look at the fits Y2K is causing. There is no reason to
believe that outside risks which affect your organization will never affect
your systems. This is a non-issue for standardized software. Because these
developers and producing software for many users they can take any
technological advances into account on new releases and need only program
the code once. This avoids the high cost of updating through economies of
scale.
3. Programming on other platforms:
- - many customized software companies do not write the engine that they
develop software on. For instance, customized software is often written on
Lotus Notes or Microsoft Access. What does this mean for the purchaser of
customized software? It means that if you as a user need a specialized tool
in your customized piece of software that is not offered on the platform
used by the developer, you cannot have that tool; the company that is
customizing software for you has a set toolbox from which they can access
innovative techniques. They are not in a position to expand the functions
offered on their development platform if it is necessary. This also brings
us back to point 2.. Lets assume you contract for a customized piece of
software in Microsoft Access and its done in a year. Well, when a new
version of Microsoft Access is released you won't be able to take advantage
of the new Access tools in the programming. See point #1.
4. The success of Customized vs. Standardized software developers
- -If you look at the largest software company in the world, Microsoft, you
will very quickly notice that they do not develop customized software. Then
think of the any number of successful software companies that spring to mind
and you'll probably find that they too do not develop customized software.
I'm sure some successful customized software companies may exist but I can't
think of any offhand (and, those that are successful become a standardized
software producer due to pure volume of users - for example, DOS was a
specialized system until it was widely accepted). Why? The huge costs
involved. The history of customized software companies is fraught with
organizations that offer these services exclusively and eventually face
bankruptcy. The costs of this type of business are enormous.
5. Where are environmental management systems heading in the long run?
The increased concern for the environment at all levels of business and
society has been one of the drivers that is making ISO 14001 so successful.
I think it can be agreed that the 5 step management system model of Policy,
Planning, Implementation and Operation, Checking and Corrective action and
Management review has it foundations in financial management. After all, the
first and foremost concern of people has always been with money, and
therefore this model evolved many many years ago in order to manage it. This
model has been put onto quality quite successfully and now is finally being
put onto environmental management. What this means is that the whole arena
of environmental management is likely to result in a system of reporting
that mirrors financial reporting (reporting is after all one of the main
goals of a management system because it is the only means by which to
achieve accountability of those having stewardship over assets,
environmental assets in this case). Evidence to this effect is everywhere.
For example the environmental reporting requirements of SEC in the United
States, the success of ethical mutual funds, greentaxes in some European
Countries and EPA benchmarking studies. I'm willing to bet that Fujitsu has
had or will be having discussions about internal benchmarking. In order the
achieve this effectively, internally at Fujitsu and externally where all of
this is eventually leading, STANDARDIZATION IS NEEDED.
In summary my advice is this:
1. You absolutely have to take a long run approach to your decision. Where
is Fujitsu going with Environmental Management?
2. I would suggest that you find a piece of software that provides the
flexibility and tools necessary for you to set up a standardized system yet
still be able to add necessary customization.
3. Customization should be kept to an absolute minimum
4. If you do decide to purchase a customized piece of software, have a very
serious look at the financial viability of the company (ask for financial
statements) and set stringent software documentation requirements. Also
insist that you receive copies of the documentation.
There is a place for customized software, but it exists only in an area
where the number of users are extremely small and not expected to grow. ISO
14001 is obviously not one of those areas.
Good luck,
Robert
Robert Ganzhorn
Director of Marketing and Sales
GreenWare Environmental Systems Inc (http://www.greenware.com)
Specialists in environmental management information systems
145 King Street East, Suite 200, Toronto, Ontario Canada M5C 2Y8
tel: (416)363-5450; fax: (416)367-2653; email: rob@greenware.com
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #46
*****************************