iso14000-digest Monday, February 15 1999 Volume 02 : Number 047
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 12:44:55 -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
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 09 Feb 1999 18:03:57 -0500
From: HY BRAVERMAN
Subject: Re: 14K software strategies
To Adam and group:
Before you go to an architect and contractor, you sit down and sketch
out the design of a house you want to build, the same process applies to
an information systems that will support an environmental management
system.
You determine all the sources and destinations for the data. You then
determine the services that will support those systems that contain the
data. (Network included.)
And just as you may want to put an addition on to your home, you have to
sketch it out, ask some people who do the work, get opinions and ideas
from other sources. The same applies to adding information supplements
to an existing information superstructure. Getting the help from the
data processing professional in your organization is cheaper than hiring
outside consultants. Who would know where all the computer are and whos
desk and machines they are attached to, then the computer services
people.
The resources are mostly in-house, you can get some outside help. But
rely on those who know the information architecture inside your
organization, they can be your best ally. Without them, your worst
enemy.
Hy Braverman
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1999 19:34:14 EST
From: Apricot458@aol.com
Subject: Re: Software for EMS
Robert's sensible comments are very welcome and surprising considering his
connection with EMS software itself. I find myself wanting to trust him.
'Cera Rendt-Scott
ET Student
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:45:32 -0500
From: "rob"
Subject: RE: Software for EMS
Dear 'Cera:
Thank you very much. If a business isn't operated with integrity, it won't
be operating for very long.
take care
rob
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-iso14000@quality.org [mailto:owner-iso14000@quality.org]On
> Behalf Of Apricot458@aol.com
> Sent: February 9, 1999 7:34 PM
> To: iso14000@quality.org
> Subject: Re: Software for EMS
>
>
> Robert's sensible comments are very welcome and surprising considering his
> connection with EMS software itself. I find myself wanting to trust him.
>
> 'Cera Rendt-Scott
> ET Student
>
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:35:25 -0800
From: Burton Hamner
Subject: Indicators of business P2 progress
(sorry for any cross-postings...)
At 11:27 AM 2/9/99 -0500, JAMES LOUNSBURY wrote:
>A few weeks ago, someone posted a set of (5?) qualitative questions
> to rate how well companies are doing on Pollution Prevention (P2)
progress. I filed it in my >computer in a place never to be found again.
Could you please re-post that piece? Thanks.
>
>Jim Lounsbury
>703-308-8463: Fax 703-308-8433
>Lounsbury.James@EPA.gov
>
I am the guilty poster. Just yesterday Neil Kolwey (Colorado state P2
program) and I were chatting about this topic some more, we were
speculating about what the order of the P2 progress indicators would be in
a company's evolution towards "sustainability". Here is the relevant part
of our messaging, which I hope answers your question above.
- - Burt Hamner
...some thoughts on the progression topic. They are related to the "five
basic indicators" of sustainable business discussion that I initiated on
P2TECH a while ago. At the end of it all (about 10 people got involved) I
concluded that nobody disagreed with these five basic indicators:
Cost: Company knows true cost of its waste and pollution.
Toxics: Company has done some toxics use reduction.
TQM: Company workers use basic TQM-type process analysis tools to analyze
what they are doing.
EMS: Company has an organized management system to identify and respond to
environmental concerns
Networking: Company participates in pollution prevention knowledge networks.
The idea being that if a company is doing all these things, their BEHAVIOR
is as much as anyone could expect to be sustainable. Maybe they actually
pollute more next year because they increased production dramatically, but
their behavior demonstrates both capacity and intent to do something about it.
Now if you took these and ranked them as natural steps towards
sustainability, I think they would go in order of progression:
1 Networking
2 TQEM
3 Cost
4 Toxics
5 EMS
1. Networking creates motivation, which is needed to start the whole
progression. By networking I mean the act of raising your head above the
company chaos and looking around the horizon for help. Once in the network
companies can keep receiving info about P2 and new money savers. Any
business that is bad at networking in the 21 Century is dead meat in any case.
2. TQEM at the process level is usually the first thing that happens
following motivation. Someone picks a problem, they analyze it, apply P2
philosophy, and get some results. This stimulates other projects, and so
on. TQEM activities simply enable the workers to analyze their processes
and identify where and why waste and pollution are being created. There
are really only 3 or 4 basic diagrams needed to do this. TQEM provides the
baseline process information from which all subsequent decisions must be
made. Needless to say most people don't call their process improvement
projects "TQEM" but that is sort of what they are doing.
3. Cost comes once you have the right process data from TQEM analyses.
Once a manager knows the potential range of savings available from reducing
waste they can see why they are in it for the money.
4. When managers decide they are ready to start really making decisions
(as opposed to the staff fooling around with small TQEM projects), they
need to start on toxics reduction first. That shows they get the point
about P2.
5. EMS or something similar happens after managers have had a few
successes and they decide they want to keep trying. Then they start really
"managing" ie delegation, evaluating, controlling, etc. But it doesn't
have to be ISO 14001, it can be five minutes of discussion at every monday
mgmt meeting. The point is that most employees could tell you directly and
specifically how they go about trying to be sustainable. If they all tell
the same story then they have an EMS!
Here is the test to see whether you agree. Could any of these five be
eliminated in a sustainable business? If not then the list is a minimal
list. And if a company is doing all of these, do you think it is got the
basic ingredients needed for sustainability? If not then what would you
add? If so then this list is sufficient. So I believe these five
indicators are both necessary and sufficient to evaluate a firm's progress.
The order of evolution is not a given of course but it is a logical way to
build sustainable capacity for P2 in an organization. A firm might start
do a little toxics reduction as its first project (like switching to safer
solvents or cleaners, etc). But systematic attention to P2 only happens
after top mgmt has looked at the costs and issues and make it a policy.
If I was designing a P2 outreach or techn assistance program, I would think
about using these five steps as the basic development steps. Get firms
into the P2 network so you can show them success stories and hit that
motivation button. Then teach them basic process analysis tools and help
their employee teams practice them on something relatively simple (and
network them with other techn assistance programs that are about basic
productivity). Then help staff figure out what the real savings are and
what the "savings envelope" could be (more motivation). Then help
management get serious about toxics reduction, especially through supplier
partnerships (more networking) so they have something that they have to
actually manage (not delegate to some flunky). Then show managers how
various EMS models can help them develop and maintain their own systematic
approach to P2. Each of these five stages requires a different set of
outreach and assistance activities. Might take five years to get most of
the target firms through the five stages, but it's like bricklaying...
Note that compliance is NOT on my own list of indicators of sustainability.
That's because it is a given. Anyone not in compliance is not sustainable
by definition. I mean really out of compliance (no pollution controls, no
clue etc), not breaking EPA paperwork rules. I REALLY object to some
business award programs that include compliance as something to reward.
That implies that some legal requirements aren't as expected as others.
That's my editorial. Now about leadership projects, you might consider
some roundtables with business leaders to ask THEM to consider and rank or
reorder these indicators. Even if they disagree with them, they are a good
straw man to whack at. Maybe they will all agree that the indicators should
be changed, or maybe they will all like them. Anyway it is a good way to
keep the goal of measuring progress focused on sustainable BEHAVIOR, not
counting cooties.
*******************************************************
Burton Hamner
- - Adjunct Professor, Asian Institute of Management, Manila, Philippines
- - President, Hamner Associates, LLC
4343 4th Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington, 98107
tel/fax: 206-789-5499
email: bhamner@mindspring.com
VISIT the SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS WEBSPACE and my home pages at:
web: http://www.mindspring.com/~bhamner
*******************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 16:00:43 EST
From: DBurd52011@aol.com
Subject: Re: Software for Life Cycle Assessment
Dear Pete,
Concerning software to assist in LCA analysis, I have some experience using a
software package developed by Pre^Ò of Holland. Besides very helpful technical
assistance, I was quite impressed with the database of knowledge utilized to
calculate impact analysis and the ability for the program to generate, for
each design, a single overall environmental impact number (based on ones own
prioritization of significant factors). This was quite useful when comparing
life cycle impacts for a diverse group of alternative designs and strategies.
Try contacting Michiel Oele at:
PRe Consultants BV
Plotterweg 12
3821 BB Amersfoort
The Netherlands
tel: +31 33 4555022
fax: +31 33 4555024
e-mail: oele@pre.nl
web site: www.pre.nl
Please let me know how it goes.
All the best
David Burdick
QEMS
Quality and Environmental Management Services
4917 SE Aldercrest Rd Suite A
Milwaukie, OR 97222
USA
(+1) 503 654-2070
In a message dated 99-02-09 09:34:12 EST, pete.thomas@btinternet.com writes:
<<
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
>>
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 10:20:17 -0800
From: Burton Hamner
Subject: Educators Launch Internet Workshop On Pollution Prevention
sorry for cross-postings
>10 FEBRUARY 1999
>
>Educators Launch Internet Based Workshop On Pollution Prevention
>
>Contact: Dr. David Shonnard
>drshonna@mtu.edu
>906-487-3468
>Michigan Technological University
>
>
>HOUGHTON, MI--Researchers at Michigan Technological University
>and Arizona State University have launched an open Internet based
>workshop on pollution prevention research and teaching in higher
>education.
>
>Principal investigators for the project are Dr. David Shonnard
>of the Department of Chemical Engineering at Michigan Tech and
>Dr. Stephen Beaudoin of the Chemical, Bio, and Materials
>Engineering Department at Arizona State. Funding is being
>provided by the National Science Foundation through the
>Engineering Directorate, Division of Bioengineering and
>Environmental Systems.
>
>"The goal of the open workshop is to focus a diversity of
>technical backgrounds and practical experience on pollution
>prevention issues in higher education," said Shonnard. He said
>core participants will be chosen based on a submitted position
>paper from a list of national experts compiled as part of the
>project's goals. An e-mail listserver will provide opportunities
>for open discussion on topics of interest to national and
>international participants.
>
>"Our objective is to formulate a set of recommendations and
>guidelines for the conduct of pollution prevention research in
>academia that will help to establish the foundation for research
>scholarship and encourage technology transfer to industry," said
>Shonnard. "An additional goal is to establish pedagogical
>approaches designed to ground students in various technical
>disciplines on basic environmental literacy and the fundamentals
>of pollution prevention and its implementation in industry."
>
>Shonnard said anyone who is interested in pollution prevention
>education and research is invited to participate in the Internet
>workshop, which can be found on the World Wide Web at:
>http://www.p2workshop.org .
>
>"The goal of pollution prevention is to reduce the amount and the
>toxicity of anthropogenic (human caused) pollutants emitted to
>the environment by reducing waste generation at the source,
>rather than by applying pollution controls at the end of the
>pipe," Shonnard said. He said research conducted over the last
>decade in academia, industry, and government agencies has
>advanced the state of knowledge with respect to pollution
>prevention techniques, but until now, few, if any, open forums
>for discussion have evolved.
>
> ###
>
>For more information, contact Shonnard at 906-487-3468, e-mail
>drshonna@mtu.edu or Beaudoin at 602-965-7769, e-mail:
>steve.beaudoin@asu.edu .
>
*******************************************************
Burton Hamner
- - Adjunct Professor, Asian Institute of Management, Manila, Philippines
- - President, Hamner Associates, LLC
4343 4th Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington, 98107
tel/fax: 206-789-5499
email: bhamner@mindspring.com
VISIT the SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS WEBSPACE and my home pages at:
web: http://www.mindspring.com/~bhamner
*******************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 12:42:19 -0500
From: HY BRAVERMAN
Subject: Re: Software for Life Cycle Assessment
Dear Pete Thomas:
I know there are well meaning individuals who recommend software from
XYZ corp or ABC Inc. and take it at face value that their
recommendations are harmless and without consequence. There are
consequences, some can be hazardous to the health and welfare of the
company who buys it.
The pitfall is that almost every information requirement for an
organization implementing an EMS will need to determine the actual who
needs the data, when and where the data is comming form. The accuracy
and timing is critical because data in raw form has a short half life.
Data value(value chain implication) needs to be assessed and applied.
There are no "PLUG & PLAY" software for information requirements of an
EMS's magnitude. Therefore, the prudent action to take is to ask for
help from thje people who know the information architecture of your
organization, your own data processing organization. They will know
what else can be added or not. Use what you got, there are experts
in-house, they'll help you and point you to the right path, and if you
need a canned software package, have them at your side when you listen
to the presentation of the vendor.
Be care full out there.....Hy Braverman
> Dear Pete,
>
> Concerning software to assist in LCA analysis, I have some experience using a
> software package developed by Pre^Ò of Holland. Besides very helpful technical
> assistance, I was quite impressed with the database of knowledge utilized to
> calculate impact analysis and the ability for the program to generate, for
> each design, a single overall environmental impact number (based on ones own
> prioritization of significant factors). This was quite useful when comparing
> life cycle impacts for a diverse group of alternative designs and strategies.
>
> In a message dated 99-02-09 09:34:12 EST, pete.thomas@btinternet.com writes:
>
> <<
> 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
> >>
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 10:22:07 -0800
From: Burton Hamner
Subject: Latest Management Research: Environmental Management
sorry for any cross postings...
>Subject: Latest Management Research: Environmental Management
>I thought this information might be of interest for colleagues
>interested in environmental management, its politics, development and
>bussines side.
>Walter Leal Filho
>
>The January edition of the FREE e-jounal 'Latest Management Research +
>Practice' is now online. It has the theme of Environmental Management,
>and consists of an editorial and 4 articles. Please find below this
>month's
>editorial and brief citations of the articles. The full text of these
>articles is available at the e-journals web site -
>http://www.mcb.co.uk/lmrp/issues/lmrp99-1.htm
>
>If you would like to continue receiving these free email updates, you
>can
>subscribe at the web site.
>
>Volume 1999 Issue 1 - Environmental Management
>
>--Editorial--
>
>Murray Duffin, CEO of SGS Thomson Microelectronics in France, says that
>"ecology is free...almost all our investments in environmental
>responsibility pay back in less than two years" (Duffin, 1997).
>Consuming
>less costs less. Think of it as "loss prevention" - just as you would
>protect your organization from thieves or fraud; protect it from
>wasteful
>use of often costly resources such as power and paper. If you want it to
>
>happen - manage it. Put someone in charge.
>
>Many years ago Lord Leverhulme (Lever Brothers, later Unilever) wittily
>said - "I waste half the money I spend on advertising. The trouble is, I
>
>don't know which half." Wasting resources which could be better used to
>serve customers, educate workers or go into health care or pension
>schemes is not really much of a joke. The money you make should be
>judiciously consumed, just like other resources.
>
>Don't be in the position of having to explain to your children or
>grandchildren that you didn't know any better about the environment -
>that
>you were just "obeying orders". Put your policies on the line with
>environmental protection groups, student lobby groups - anyone who can
>give them a good workover and really test their robustness. Ron Hickson
>of TransAlta Power in Alberta, Canada, takes his staff and policies to
>vocal and radical green groups to expose them to the latest thinking in
>challenges by the environmentally aware.
>
>Environmental management isn't just about saving whales and recycling
>paper. It starts in your local community. Community care is good PR.
>Depending on how powerful and influential you are in your community, you
>may be able to contribute to safer streets, after school care, local
>amenity funding and management, help to schools and community businesses
>- it will be good for your staff and good for the work environment. And
>that can reasonably be said to positively correlate to productivity and
>continuity. Business publisher MCB University Press in Bradford, England
>has its offices near to some of the most socially-deprived districts in
>the whole of Britain. MCB tries to address some of the challenges of
>staying within and participating in their community by encouraging their
>senior managers to join with and lend expertise to community
>regeneration groups. You can do likewise and encourage your staff to
>harness some of the creative power of your staff towards community
>contribution (encouragement meaning funding, time off and
>resources; not just the occasional circular or notice on the
>noticeboard).
>
>If you are interested in taking a positive lead in environmental
>management
>you can start by gathering a little more information. We have collected
>four
>fine articles this month on environmental management covering
>entrepreneurial, ethical and marketing angles. As always, we would value
>
>comments and discussions.
>
>John Peters
>Editor, LMRP
>January 1999
>
>
>-- Articles --
>
>Pollution prevention as corporate entrepreneurship
>Douglas J. Lober
>Journal of Organizational Change Management; 11: 1 1998; pp. 26-37
>ISSN: 0953-4814
>Keywords: Business , Entrepreneurship , Environment , Environmental
>management , Pollution
>Article Type: Theoretical with application in practice
>Quality Indicators: Research Implication- **, Practice Implication- ** ,
>
>Originality- *, Readability- **
>
>If you wish to view the full text of this article it can be found at
>http://www.mcb.co.uk/lmrp/issues/lmrp99-1.htm.
>
>Integrating environmental education and environmental management
>Walter Leal Filho
>Environmental Management and Health; 08: 4 1997; pp. 133-135
>ISSN: 0956-6163
>Keywords: Environmental audit , Environmental impact , Environmental
>management strategy , Sustainable development
>Article Type: Theoretical with application in practice
>Quality Indicators: Research Implication- *, Practice Implication- ** ,
>Originality- *, Readability- *
>
>If you wish to view the full text of this article it can be found at
>http://www.mcb.co.uk/lmrp/issues/lmrp99-1.htm.
>
>Managing God's estate: current environmental policies and the Biblical
>tradition
>Michael Szenberg
>International Journal of Social Economics; 24: 6 1997; pp. 628-642
>ISSN: 0306-8293
>Keywords: Beliefs , Ecology , Environmental management strategy ,
>Religion ,
>Social economics
>Article Type: Case study
>Quality Indicators: Research Implication- **, Practice Implication- ** ,
>
>Originality- **, Readability- **
>
>If you wish to view the full text of this article it can be found at
>http://www.mcb.co.uk/lmrp/issues/lmrp99-1.htm.
>
>The green initiative: improving quality and competitiveness for European
>
>SMEs
>Kate Greenan , Paul Humphreys , Ronan McIvor
>European Business Review; 97: 5 1997; pp. 208-214
>ISSN: 0955-534X
>Keywords: Competitiveness , Environmental management strategy , Europe ,
>
>Quality , Small to medium-sized enterprises
>Article Type: Theoretical with worked e×ample, Literature review
>Quality Indicators: Research Implication- **, Practice Implication- ***
>,
>Originality- **, Readability- ***
>
>If you wish to view the full text of this article it can be found at
>http://www.mcb.co.uk/lmrp/issues/lmrp99-1.htm.
>
>This issue of Latest Management Research and Practice is drawn from the
>collection of more than 100 journals on the EMERALD Database. If you
>wish to view any of the journals included in this month's LMRP, why not
>take advantage of a free 30-day trial by going to
>http://www.emerald-library.com/EMR/EMRguest.html.
>
>If you have any comments or questions about Latest Management Research +
>Practise then please e-mail ckeenan@mcb.co.uk or visit the LMRP homepage
>at http://www.mcb.co.uk/lmrp/home.htm.
>
>If you would like to continue receiving these free email updates, you
>can
>subscribe at the web site.
>
>
*******************************************************
Burton Hamner
- - Adjunct Professor, Asian Institute of Management, Manila, Philippines
- - President, Hamner Associates, LLC
4343 4th Avenue NW, Seattle, Washington, 98107
tel/fax: 206-789-5499
email: bhamner@mindspring.com
VISIT the SUSTAINABLE BUSINESS WEBSPACE and my home pages at:
web: http://www.mindspring.com/~bhamner
*******************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Fri, 12 Feb 1999 17:37:05 EST
From: DBurd52011@aol.com
Subject: Re: Software for Life Cycle Assessment
Dear Mr. Braveman, Mr. Thomas, Others,
I agree with you. The use of ^Óplug and play^Ô software for an EMS without
first considering its information needs is bound to fail.
However, just like a good spell-check program can quickly find misspelled
words, or a calculator efficiently determine the answer to a complicated math
problem, a good LCA program greatly reduces the immense work required for a
thorough life cycle analysis. Take for example, a LCA analysis on a simple
idea, such as comparing the overall impacts of making coffee from a coffee
machine verses boiling water from a teakettle. The tremendous number of
factors which need to be calculated will quickly show one the speed and
accuracy offer by LCA software.
All the best
David Burdick
In a message dated 99-02-12 12:54:10 EST, braveman@ziplink.net writes:
<<
Dear Pete Thomas:
I know there are well meaning individuals who recommend software from
XYZ corp or ABC Inc. and take it at face value that their
recommendations are harmless and without consequence. There are
consequences, some can be hazardous to the health and welfare of the
company who buys it.
The pitfall is that almost every information requirement for an
organization implementing an EMS will need to determine the actual who
needs the data, when and where the data is comming form. The accuracy
and timing is critical because data in raw form has a short half life.
Data value(value chain implication) needs to be assessed and applied.
There are no "PLUG & PLAY" software for information requirements of an
EMS's magnitude. Therefore, the prudent action to take is to ask for
help from thje people who know the information architecture of your
organization, your own data processing organization. They will know
what else can be added or not. Use what you got, there are experts
in-house, they'll help you and point you to the right path, and if you
need a canned software package, have them at your side when you listen
to the presentation of the vendor.
Be care full out there.....Hy Braverman
> Dear Pete,
>
> Concerning software to assist in LCA analysis, I have some experience using
a
> software package developed by Pre^Ò of Holland. Besides very helpful
technical
> assistance, I was quite impressed with the database of knowledge utilized
to
> calculate impact analysis and the ability for the program to generate, for
> each design, a single overall environmental impact number (based on ones
own
> prioritization of significant factors). This was quite useful when
comparing
> life cycle impacts for a diverse group of alternative designs and
strategies.
>
> In a message dated 99-02-09 09:34:12 EST, pete.thomas@btinternet.com
writes:
>
> <<
> 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
> >>
>>
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 09:34:34 -0500
From: "David L. Turner"
Subject: Re: Latest Management Research: Environmental Management
Disclaimer: I mean no flame toward any poster or author.
Sorry for the ranting so early in the week.
At the risk of splitting hairs...
I like the general idea and specific suggestions in this
posting, but the following language from a part of it
bothers me:
>... takes his staff and policies to vocal and radical
>green groups to expose them to the latest thinking in
>challenges by the environmentally aware.
Listening is always a good thing to do, but I do not
consider people "environmentally aware" just because they
care enough to form a group and speak out. Too often their
expectations are unrealistic, their conclusions arrived at
illogically, and their judgements extreme. The activity
going on in the heads is not " the latest thinking" but the
latest emotional reacting to something. They may care
deeply, but need help figuring out what can be done that
will be really effective.
The reason I spend this much energy on this is that we
on these who subscribe to these listservs are engaged in a
long and involved effort to bring significant environmental
change to our various spheres of control. I find that the
politics of screaming and dire prediction often hobble the
ability of those who can guide organizations and systems to
change.
(I am also buffeted these days by local politics. Our
village is in the throes dealing with an upcoming auction
of a farm which will most likely bring unwanted
development to the area. Some here (too many IMHO) feel
that the best thing to do to stop the sale is "some
drumming" and "visualization" of open spaces and natural
beauty. What is really needed is about $4 million, but to
some, magic is easier to work with.)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unhappy Macnam! Unhappy Macnam!
Regards,
David Turner
YSI Safety & Environmental Coordinator
1725 Brannum Lane
Yellow Springs, Ohio 45387
Email: DTurner@YSI.com
Phone 1-937-767-1685 ext. 270
Facmetaphor: 1-937-767-9353
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 15 Feb 1999 12:59:04 -0500
From: "Lynda M. Wiseman"
Subject: Re: Software for Life Cycle Assessment
Hi Everyone --
You all may be interested in joining the Environmental Health & Safety
Software Development Group (EHSSDG) -- a forum for EH&S professionals, IT
experts, and 3rd. party integrators or consultants to discuss these and
other issues of concern. We also host workshops & comparative product
demonstrations. Ps. check out our website www.astm.org/COMMIT/ehssdg and
feel free to contact any of us on the steering committee for more info or to
add this topic to the agenda for an upcoming meeting!
Lynda Wiseman, Principal
The Carpenter Group
info@carpentergrp.com
- -----Original Message-----
From: DBurd52011@aol.com
To: iso14000@quality.org
Cc: braveman@ziplink.net ; pete.thomas@btinternet.com
Date: Friday, February 12, 1999 6:34 PM
Subject: Re: Software for Life Cycle Assessment
Dear Mr. Braveman, Mr. Thomas, Others,
I agree with you. The use of ^Óplug and play^Ô software for an EMS without
first considering its information needs is bound to fail.
However, just like a good spell-check program can quickly find misspelled
words, or a calculator efficiently determine the answer to a complicated
math
problem, a good LCA program greatly reduces the immense work required for a
thorough life cycle analysis. Take for example, a LCA analysis on a simple
idea, such as comparing the overall impacts of making coffee from a coffee
machine verses boiling water from a teakettle. The tremendous number of
factors which need to be calculated will quickly show one the speed and
accuracy offer by LCA software.
All the best
David Burdick
In a message dated 99-02-12 12:54:10 EST, braveman@ziplink.net writes:
<<
Dear Pete Thomas:
I know there are well meaning individuals who recommend software from
XYZ corp or ABC Inc. and take it at face value that their
recommendations are harmless and without consequence. There are
consequences, some can be hazardous to the health and welfare of the
company who buys it.
The pitfall is that almost every information requirement for an
organization implementing an EMS will need to determine the actual who
needs the data, when and where the data is comming form. The accuracy
and timing is critical because data in raw form has a short half life.
Data value(value chain implication) needs to be assessed and applied.
There are no "PLUG & PLAY" software for information requirements of an
EMS's magnitude. Therefore, the prudent action to take is to ask for
help from thje people who know the information architecture of your
organization, your own data processing organization. They will know
what else can be added or not. Use what you got, there are experts
in-house, they'll help you and point you to the right path, and if you
need a canned software package, have them at your side when you listen
to the presentation of the vendor.
Be care full out there.....Hy Braverman
> Dear Pete,
>
> Concerning software to assist in LCA analysis, I have some experience
using
a
> software package developed by Pre^Ò of Holland. Besides very helpful
technical
> assistance, I was quite impressed with the database of knowledge utilized
to
> calculate impact analysis and the ability for the program to generate, for
> each design, a single overall environmental impact number (based on ones
own
> prioritization of significant factors). This was quite useful when
comparing
> life cycle impacts for a diverse group of alternative designs and
strategies.
>
> In a message dated 99-02-09 09:34:12 EST, pete.thomas@btinternet.com
writes:
>
> <<
> 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
> >>
>>
------------------------------
End of iso14000-digest V2 #47
*****************************