tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-46904525685692963952024-03-12T20:59:02.026-07:00Green ManufacturingCommentary, information and resources related to green manufacturing, sustainable manufacturing and sustainability in the US and abroad. Based on information from a variety of sources (web to print) and including technical information from researchers in the field as well as researchers at the University of California in the Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability (LMAS - lmas.berkeley.edu).David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.comBlogger128125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-25187786671299444932015-11-17T21:33:00.001-08:002015-11-17T21:41:19.874-08:00The Role of Manufacturing in the Circular Economy<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Connecting all the arrows<br /><br />A while back in the last posting (July?!) the </span><a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2015_07_01_archive.html" target="_blank">circular economy</a>
was included in the discussion about the role of people and the ‘3rd
machine age’. The start of the discussion reminded us all of the Ricoh
Comet Circle with the forward and reverse supply chain loops. You’ll
recall that the forward (counterclockwise loop) at the top of the Comet
Circle is from materials through production to delivery to the consumer
and use. The reverse (clockwise loop at the bottom of the Circle) is
after the consumer is done with the product back through recycling,
recovery, and return to material supply chain. Usually when the circular
economy is mentioned it is in the context of the return loop -
including extended use of the product, return to consumer via secondary
use, repair, remanufacturing or, at least, resource recovery. Whatever
is not part of the return circles (sort of like the dust spewing from
the tail of a comet) is lost, non-circular or, in the lingo of the
circular economy folks, “leakage.”</span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The “circular view” of the
economy is in contrast to the “linear view.” In a post earlier this year
the concept of the circular economy was introduced with an <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2014/03/creating-circular-economy-part-i.html" target="_blank">illustration</a>
of the desired paths of material use in an ideal economy, the
“technical materials cycle”, as a parallel to the biological materials
cycle. Let’s review the concept of circularity in the economy so we are
all on the same page!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">According to the <a href="http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/" target="_blank">Ellen MacArthur Foundation</a>
(EMF) the current “linear” economy (meaning basically take + make +
dispose) is based on large quantities of cheap, easily available energy,
water and materials. That model is rapidly reading its limits as
materials, water and (to some extent) energy become more inaccessible
or, at least, costly to obtain. We might expand the take + make +
dispose to something a bit more complicated as take + process + make +
distribute + and dispose … but it’s the same idea. The figure below
gives a more detailed picture of the product life cycle in our linear
economy.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2GfHgF-S9I_0n7iPfD3gmKL_DJ4sKRz1OoLFXzHWsnu6LinPO8oF08SF9ZddiaJXnRNkXgwMw7zECCJIGIrKA9i_LPf5s6HaDSbkuCM4X622irLd_WAQPhPGuPBOhU0895y4a29vAwYE/s1600/linear-economy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="280" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh2GfHgF-S9I_0n7iPfD3gmKL_DJ4sKRz1OoLFXzHWsnu6LinPO8oF08SF9ZddiaJXnRNkXgwMw7zECCJIGIrKA9i_LPf5s6HaDSbkuCM4X622irLd_WAQPhPGuPBOhU0895y4a29vAwYE/s320/linear-economy.jpg" style="cursor: move;" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">The circular economy, by contrast, is defined by EMF as restorative in nature and “regenerative by design”, meaning that it attempts to maintain products, components, and materials at their highest utility and value at all times - minimize down cycling or conversion to energy or disposal. EMF defines a technical and a biological cycle - the so-called “<a href="http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/circular-economy/interactive-diagram" target="_blank">butterfly</a>” diagram illustrating how, in a circular economy, products are designed to enable “cycles of disassembly and reuse” and thus reducing or eliminating waste, see below from EMF. You will want to go to the link to see the detail<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGJO67_nctFEILNaCvCFYOvYEy8RSQNQY1D1Ul-4uMDFCcagDK0-NAc6MVS4S4jGF42sH0Rm1bKfik_Rh7qX6xSszaBkzcyrCLy0rnE4qASGKHhlS5i4wloO6DWGgwwzz9xCMVdzyKeeQ/s1600/butterfly-diagram-EMF-detailed.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="293" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhGJO67_nctFEILNaCvCFYOvYEy8RSQNQY1D1Ul-4uMDFCcagDK0-NAc6MVS4S4jGF42sH0Rm1bKfik_Rh7qX6xSszaBkzcyrCLy0rnE4qASGKHhlS5i4wloO6DWGgwwzz9xCMVdzyKeeQ/s400/butterfly-diagram-EMF-detailed.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />To accomplish this it is necessary to “circularize” the linear image above as below by including return loops (<i>ala</i> the Ricoh Comet Circle) for such things as product repair and reuse, parts harvesting, remanufacturing and redistribution, materials recovery and reprocessing, and recycling.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHQV5L-wZA8sxObfn_A5ptlDNG1Y1ypYx56ISU62oI2fFxGue9RHiE6GXUUfkhhthvxRod16JrQoRrwSEJbejJpcl5CXjnZhrlFV9MTuIVmiMkjeD9X2zfbvxZYSm0tf4zbktKPDBBhvs/s1600/circularizing-economy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHQV5L-wZA8sxObfn_A5ptlDNG1Y1ypYx56ISU62oI2fFxGue9RHiE6GXUUfkhhthvxRod16JrQoRrwSEJbejJpcl5CXjnZhrlFV9MTuIVmiMkjeD9X2zfbvxZYSm0tf4zbktKPDBBhvs/s400/circularizing-economy.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">
</span><br />So how is this to be accomplished? Not surprisingly (at least not surprising if you’ve been reading this blog for any time) manufacturing plays a large, and to many, key role.<br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Let’s take a look at the right side of the butterfly diagram and look more closely at the circles and intersections. The figure below (from Rachel Dzombak, Adapted from Philips 2015 & Ellen MacArthur Foundation 2012)is a schematic of this “right side” and parallels the prior diagram with some additional specificity in where circular paths connect and showing circularity and “leakage”.<br /><br /><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnhBUTKz7Xb1Uf20ot927AHoeRk9stYZisaLUlujTi6EIGeWuiqqSSbEGUz1CFYt16i-KvYhDD8iKjEkBDEaFTJtZKJX1YcmeJLRK-O28d6C3Ch14-wKcfGNcgdqmec0SXW_DZxd1DD9k/s1600/right-half-schematic.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="261" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhnhBUTKz7Xb1Uf20ot927AHoeRk9stYZisaLUlujTi6EIGeWuiqqSSbEGUz1CFYt16i-KvYhDD8iKjEkBDEaFTJtZKJX1YcmeJLRK-O28d6C3Ch14-wKcfGNcgdqmec0SXW_DZxd1DD9k/s320/right-half-schematic.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><br />Let’s focus on where the arrows meet the block diagrams (the circular economy equivalent to “where the rubber meets the road”!) At this interface it will be required to efficiently and effectively, as appropriate<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">:</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- </span>disassemble the product into components, subcomponents or materials, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- handle the product and the pieces/materials, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- process/repair/reassemble/package any remanufactured products or repaired products or maintained products, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- add the materials/pieces/subcomponents/products back into the product lifecycle supply chain (that is, back into the flow at the appropriate point)</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">and</span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> </span> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- do all this while insuring purity/quality of the material (and watch toxicity)or product, cost effectively, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- with sufficient productivity to meet demand (and cost) </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- using machines and labor optimally, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- handle the wide variety of incoming and outgoing materials and products/parts, </span><br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">- etc. etc. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Add to that keeping track of “where this stuff came from” and insuring this is being done in an environmentally benign way (not to mention with energy and water and other resource efficiency) and this is a major undertaking.<br /><br />But … that sounds a lot like manufacturing! <br /><br />To make everything go “round and round” by extracting stuff from the life cycle and reinserting it in a useful manner back in is dependent on manufacturing in all its glory. And automation can play its role to insure this is productive but this is going to require a rethinking of “the system” and a recalibration of the business model so that the capacity and flow are large enough to insure this is economically viable.<br /><br />Let’s talk more about that next posting.</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Finally, LMAS research<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ers along with ot<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">hers in the Cent<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">er <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">for </span>Green</span> <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">C</span>he<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">mi<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">stry at Berkeley will b<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">e par<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ticipating in the Disruptive Innovation Fe<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">stival (DIF) hosted by the Ellen MacArthur Foundation with our own Berkeley "Big Top Tent". It wil<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">l take place o<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ver three weeks in November with some live, some pre-recorded, sessions on a variety <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">of top<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ics</span></span> but all<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;"> available through the DIF lin<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">k for some <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">time after <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Novem<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ber for <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">people to wat<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ch and review. We'll be presentin<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">g on the top<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ic of "The <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Role of Manufa<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">cturing in the Circular <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">Economy" with more detail following the ab<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ove discussion. <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">You can <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">follow the <a href="http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/programmes/education/dif" target="_blank">link to DIF</a> t<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">o re<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">gister (free!) to view <span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">all t<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he program co<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ntents. T<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">he LMAS presentation will "go live" at 18:00 - 18:30 GMT on the 19th Novem<span style="font-family: "arial" , "helvetica" , sans-serif;">ber.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span> </span><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-55389061967501341842015-07-09T11:24:00.002-07:002015-07-09T11:24:57.546-07:00The 3rd Machine Age<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Where are all the people?<br /><br />I recently bought and read a book “<a href="http://secondmachineage.com/" target="_blank">The Second Machine Age</a>”
by two visionary authors at MIT predicting (touting?) the rise of the
next industrial revolution and the age of the robots … like the phrase
in Lord of the Rings movie predicting the demise of men (“The Age of Men
is over. The Time of the Orc has come." — Gothmog to his army in The
Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King). We see here the rise of the
machine (again). <br /><br />Other recent publications, in a series of
books and articles, tout the role of automation and robots in enhancing
productivity. In “<a href="http://penton.ebookhost.net/iw/kronos/1/index.php?e=152&open=1" target="_blank">Plant of the future</a>”
(a publication of IndustryWeek) the benefits of computers, automation,
robotics and “digitalization” are reviewed with the summary comments:
“Automation allows people to complete tasks faster with fewer errors at
cheaper costs. This increases productivity, which means people don't
have to spend as much time or money to accomplish tasks, which generates
new wealth for society. True, if your job was eliminated through
automation, you are personally less wealthy. That's the painful side of
economic disruptions.”<br /><br />The benefits are clear for the economy on
the front side … the challenges created by the “if your job was
eliminated” part are less clear.<br /><br />First of all, I am not a
luddite. I love technology and have spent a lot of time researching and
developing aids to automation that make factories and machines hum and
perform efficient, quality, cost effective operations. And, I also am
aware that many times in the past (just check Amazon for this Second
Machine Age book and they’ll give a list of a bunch of earlier books
predicting the machine age and its benefits others have bought) there
have been similar predictions but calibrated to the buzz word of
technology of the time. Recall a post in this blog back in October 2014
on the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2014/10/the-digital-revolution.html" target="_blank">digital revolution</a>
where referenced was made to a Fortune article from November 1994. That
article predicted that the digital factory could have the effect to
“stabilize or even increase the number of production-worker jobs in the
U.S.” Well … not so much in the U.S. Maybe elsewhere.<br /><br />But, there
is a growing concern about this enthusiasm for the age of the machine -
at least among some of us - or at least by me. Part of the concern stems
from the simple question “Who takes things apart?” The last posting on
the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2015/06/circular-economy-and-global-material.html" target="_blank">circular economy</a>
summarized the results of a study on material flow in the economy as
follows: “… the degree of circularity of the global economy measured as
the share of actually recycled materials in total processed materials is
quite low - only 6%. Most of the processed materials (66%) left the
global economy as wastes and emissions.” This is a problem and it is not
necessarily helped by automation or increases in efficiencies on the
“input side” of the economy. Let’s look more at this.<br /><br />You may recall early on in postings in this blog a reference to the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/09/sustainability-angst.html%29" target="_blank">Ricoh Comet Circle </a>(way
back in 2009 in fact. Reproduced below for reference (from
http://www.ricoh.com/environment/management/concept.html) , the comet
circle was described as an excellent </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfFoSxVpVnbPTt1NjPQn_o7QqCSi5twUlaqcVZ8vZiiwK62EfhlqsSsPk-zo7Z2Trs_ljIV15yfK2SyDC_kfIHlLT-7W6gJLsIkKWLdGvoOhiNUHwhRF80L9Mw0h8SrZlDHxd9GOgTBSc/s1600/Comet+Circle-cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="173" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhfFoSxVpVnbPTt1NjPQn_o7QqCSi5twUlaqcVZ8vZiiwK62EfhlqsSsPk-zo7Z2Trs_ljIV15yfK2SyDC_kfIHlLT-7W6gJLsIkKWLdGvoOhiNUHwhRF80L9Mw0h8SrZlDHxd9GOgTBSc/s400/Comet+Circle-cropped.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">way to represent the “supply </span>chain” feeding the consumer. The forward (counterclockwise loop) at the top is from materials through production to delivery to the consumer and use. The reverse (clockwise loop at the bottom) is after the consumer is done with the product back through recycling, recovery, and return to material supply chain. Usually when a green supply chain is mentioned it is in the context of the return loop - resource recovery. The posting noted that the forward loop is only half the battle and, if that loop is done correctly, the reverse loop is much easier to implement and overall better.<br /><br />“Better” here refers to design for everything necessary to make the product successful and efficiently producible, energy efficient in use, etc., but, also, adaptable to the reverse supply chain. This is the circular economy! The reverse loops in the comet circle are the return loops in the butterfly diagram on the technical side of the circular economy.<br /><br />So what’s the problem?<br /><br />Automation with its robots, assembly systems, mechanized manipulators and tooling put things together. And usually in a way that they stay together. They they don’t take things apart. If you Google “robotic disassembly” one of the top hits is a 2013 posting in Popular Science on “<a href="http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-03/robotic-chicken-butcher" target="_blank">How it Works: The Robotic Chicken Butcher</a>”. Elon Musk refers to the recent explosion of one of his booster rockets as “<a href="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/jan/16/elon-musk-falcon-9-rapid-unscheduled-disassembly" target="_blank">rapid unscheduled disassembly</a>.” That’s not what we are talking about! OK - I know there are other examples of robotic disassembly - some <a href="http://www.lucas-nuelle.us/2768/apg/3577/IMS+11+Disassembly+by+robot.htm" target="_blank">hardware</a> is available but the field of technology applied to disassembly - for the purpose of repair, remanufacturing, reuse, recovery or recycling - is not at all developed. So how do we move up from 6% circularity?<br /><br />How about people? What if the design and production of products was done in consideration of the return loop in the comet circle? What if we could take apart for the purpose of remanufacturing (essentially extending the life), repair, reuse, etc. the products that course through the veins of the industrialized economy? And do this for everything - from cell phones to dishwashers to automobiles to airplanes and buildings. That would be a big step forward.<br /><br />Some are already working on this. A company named <a href="http://www.corecentricsolutions.com/" target="_blank">CoreCentric Solutions</a> in Chicago focuses on what is called “reverse logistics supply chains” - part lifecycle management and remanufacturing solutions. They work with large and small companies to take excess inventory back, take back for part recovery and reuse out of date or replaced products, remanufacturing, etc. Their website says “Often times parts removed from an appliance after a service call are thrown away. This creates unnecessary waste in our landfills. Recycling appliance parts in a proper manner helps to "go green" by keeping harmful chemicals and metals out of land, water and air.” Then another section of their website is a shopping area where they offer “quality remanufactured” parts for the major appliances among other products.<br /><br />I have not been to their facilities but I would be surprised if they were highly automated. That’s the challenge! How could you scale such an operation to handle the reverse logistic loops of the circular economy? Any attempts at “disassembly” that have been published have been for a narrow set of products with very specific characteristics (modular, take apart/disassemble from one axis motion, removable fasteners/not welded/glued/riveted together, and so on). These are not usually the characteristics of most products produced today - think cell phones, consumer electronics, wash machines, or automobiles. But these are manufactured with high degree of automation.<br /><br />So, what’s the solution? What if one used less automation to assemble and produce products (but still could use tools and methods to make production efficient) so that one could more easily take these apart for the purpose of remanufacturing, repair, reuse, recovery, recycling? But, we’d need to see the numbers! We’d need to do a reasonable comparison of any “losses” due to reduced efficiency on the input supply side of the Comet circle (assuming there are some … not necessarily true if done right!) and how those would be offset or balanced by gains on the output return supply side. <br /><br />Design for assembly guidelines focus on ways to smooth the flow and assembly of components. Ulrich and Eppinger (Product Design and Development, 5th Edition, Irwin McGraw-Hill, 2012), a leading design textbook, lists the elements of design for assembly as:<br /><br /> 1. Minimize parts count.<br /> 2. Encourage modular assembly.<br /> 3. Stack assemblies.<br /> 4. Eliminate adjustments.<br /> 5. Eliminate cables.<br /> 6. Use self-fastening parts.<br /> 7. Use self-locating parts.<br /> 8. Eliminate reorientation.<br /> 9. Facilitate parts handling.<br /> 10. Specify standard parts.<br /><br />And, for automation, one might add to this design for assembly from “one direction” … the “stack assembly” element listed above.<br /><br />If one reviews the list, several guidelines pop up that, while making assembly efficient (and hence the supply side chain productive), in fact may frustrate the return loop in the comet circle for disassembly. For example, minimizing part counts encourages the use of parts with many materials or elements integrated as one … making replacement of pieces or recovery of materials challenging. Using self-fastening parts means things need to be mechanically or thermally separated rather than just the removal of a fastener. This is even more challenging if adhesives or welding/bonding (non removable fastening) are used.<br /><br />The good news is that most guidelines for robotic assembly should lend the product to easier disassembly. Parts need to be easy to grip (the facilitate parts handling element above), directions of assembly (stacking) as above accommodates the less dexterous movements of robots compared to humans. So, there is a basis for accommodating both assembly and disassembly. <br /><br />The real challenges come from “how things are held together” - what engineers refer to as fastening technology. This ranges from screws, to nuts and bolts, to rivets to crimping, adhesives, epoxies, welding, soldering. These are meant (at the weld, solder, adhesive end) to be one time no return joining processes. The image below of one small set of the fastener world illustrates the challenges of accommodating only one type of removable fastener.<br /><br /><br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj903wXvKXDRKg5SBrO7nlXaEgK03wet7DhShFep5Cg_ic6lU6aD_B4_FEqC4r2xVg7b7bXFpb137r_TuLG38HzD7H31C2Wo69bMbIJLSuh2QxQzPd0n7lsctSc4jRp2mEe8R5TfCLfrXY/s1600/fastener.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="216" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEj903wXvKXDRKg5SBrO7nlXaEgK03wet7DhShFep5Cg_ic6lU6aD_B4_FEqC4r2xVg7b7bXFpb137r_TuLG38HzD7H31C2Wo69bMbIJLSuh2QxQzPd0n7lsctSc4jRp2mEe8R5TfCLfrXY/s320/fastener.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Rivets are close but can often be removed by a simple drilling process. If one follows all the rules of design for assembly and then creates one giant monolithic block of product with integrated materials and essentially unassemblable components we have a problem. Take a look at most of the consumer products around your home or work place - you’ll see what is referred to- designed to be put together and work … and then disposed of, not disassembled. Finally, all parts flowing together in a symphony of assembly are known as to type, location, etc. Robots require exact location, orientation, delivery, etc. to support automatic assembly. When things get taken apart it is easy to lose the orientation, part knowledge, etc. So, to facilitate reuse or remanufacturing it would be necessary to provide labels or marking on parts to keep track of them for future use or recycling.<br /><br />But this is, like most of the topics discussed in this blog, an engineering problem - even a manufacturing engineering problem. And, the role of humans in the reverse logistics loop must be considered. The flexibility of humans which was so important to “work around” in the forward loop to insure maximum automation might be just the ticket for the reverse logistics loop. But this would have to be teamed with designed tooling and systems to insure the reverse loop is just as productive as the forward loop. <br /><br />So, if you get your pink slip from the assembly side because a robot stole your job take your application to the reverse logistics side … they should be hiring!<br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-14923914873646650992015-06-13T16:32:00.001-07:002015-06-14T20:51:37.881-07:00Circular economy (and global material and waste flows), Part III<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Where does everything go?<br /><br />The last posting on the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2014/08/circular-economy-ii_8.html" target="_blank">circular economy</a>
(CE) was back in August, 2014 and discussed how to measure progress and
the role of big data. The focus was on more sustainable behavior and
how we might encourage consumers to consider sustainable products. In
that context manufacturing needed to increase the yield (efficiency of
conversion of materials in to products) in a number of processing
operations by identifying “insights” into production that were
overlooked due to complexity of the process, large numbers of variables,
many differing process stages, etc. And the use of “big data” was one
solution.<br /><br />The <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2014/03/creating-circular-economy-part-i.html" target="_blank">circular economy idea</a>,
as introduced in part 1 of the posting on the subject strives to
convert our current “linear economy” (paraphrased as “take, make,
dispose) where we convert resources into products, use them until they
wear out, break or become out of style, and then discard them, to a
circular economy. According to a recent EU report, a circular economy is
one where-in systems retain the added value in products for as long as
possible and eliminate waste. In addition, resources are kept within the
economy when a product has reached the end of its life, so that the
product can be productively used again and again and hence create
further value. (Source: “Towards a circular economy: A zero waste
programme for Europe,” Communication from the Commission to the European
Parliament, The Council, The European Economic and Social Committee and
the Committee of the Regions, COM(2014) 398). <br /><br />If we think of
our planet as a closed system (sort of like a space station floating in
the ether) then nothing is really created beyond what we have already
available in nature and nothing really disappears as there is “no where for it to go!” So if
we look at the extraction of minerals and other raw materials, their
conversion into products and use, and then their end of life (usually
disposal), the “circularity” relates to the reuse of materials and
resources so that we keep within the limits of their availability for
all time. Once materials are extracted from the environment and
subsequently converted into something our “system” (referred to below as
the </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">socioeconomic system (SES)) </span>uses
them or stores them and eventually outputs or disposes of them. In one
sense circularity measures the degree to which once materials are used
they find their way back into the system for productive use. This is
complicated. Some materials, as in buildings, stay “in the system” for a
long time before being expelled. Others, like cell phones, may be
substantially shorter lived. Within the system we can recover and reuse,
or extend the life of, products containing these materials and, hence,
enhance circularity. Or we can expel them as waste.<br /><br />The objective in this post is to explore what our current state of circularity is with respect to materials. <br /><br />First
it is beneficial to dig a bit deeper into what circularity is in terms
of the circular economy. Perhaps the best information on what is, and is
not, included in the circular economy, is from the <a href="http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/" target="_blank">Ellen MacArthur Foundation</a>.
They have a number of reports with some based on McKinsey and Company
analysis done of the foundation - check their website for info. In one
recent publication, A New Dynamic: Effective Business in a Circular
Economy (Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2013) they outline some 15
characteristics differentiating a linear from a circular economy. Some
examples from this publication include:<br /><br />- The linear economy
externalizes costs in search of production cost reduction whereas the
circular economy internalizes costs in search for quality
service/performance and low risks. <br />- Linear point of sale ends
responsibility while circular considers business responsibility extends
beyond point of sale and includes rent/lease/recovery.<br />- Linear
creates waste streams for municipalities and individuals/society to deal
with and circular reduces waste streams and creates value streams
instead.<br />- Linear encourages standardization to add to efficiency and
ease of consumption while circular encourages standardization of
components and protocols to encourage repair, recovery and reuse.<br />-
In linear economy prices reflect only the private costs of production,
distribution, sales, etc. while in circular prices reflect the full
costs aided by reduction of externalized costs.<br />- Linear taxes labor
which encourages labor productivity by substituting capital or energy
while circular taxes waste, non-renewables, and unearned income.<br />- The linear economy views recycling as another flow of raw material and overlooks the lost embedded energy and quality.<br />-
Linear economy transforms natural and social capital into financial
capital using short term preferences with a preference to rapid, large
flows while circular (re)builds capital (stocks) from which to derive
more and better flows over the long term.<br /><br />These, plus the rest of
the 15 characteristics, define how the elements of the circular economy
link back into the system. Recall the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2014/03/creating-circular-economy-part-i.html" target="_blank">“butterfly” diagram </a>from
the earlier posting on the circular economy. It is a mirror image with
the “biological materials” on the left side showing the return material
stream in a biological system and the “technical materials” on the right
side also showing the links back in the system. The diagram shows parts
manufacturers, product manufacturers, service providers,
consumer/users, collection and then energy recover and landfill. The
links are designed to reduce the “leakage” (loss of materials, energy
and labor - expelled from the system) to disposal and landfill buy
re-introducing materials back into the system as appropriate. The ideal
situation is when products are extended in their use by increasing
lifetime, remanufacturing or refurbishing.<br /><br />One big question is:
what are the material flows and waste production and recycling - meaning
“how circular is the global economy?” It is important to determine the
current state of circularity so that one can have a benchmark against
which to track improvements or see the effect of individual or
collective efforts.<br /><br />Interestingly, this is the title of a paper
published in the Journal of Industrial Ecology in March 2015 by Willi
Haas and colleagues (full title: How Circular is the Global Economy?: An
Assessment of Material Flows, Waste Production, and Recycling in the
European Union and the World in 2005; DOI: 10.1111/jiec.12244). The
paper points out some different strategies for advancing circularity.
Loops can be closed through recycling and reuse first. Then one can
include shifting from fossil to renewable energy energy sources and
converting efficiency gains into reducing the overall level of resource
consumption. Recycling is very advanced in some sectors, like metals,
but energy requirements for recycling can be high and lower quality or
contamination of recycled materials can lead to down-cycling or
increased use of virgin material use or drive development of lower
quality products. <br /><br />But the main thrust of the paper is to layout
the flow of materials in the world with a view to determining current
levels of “circularity.” A simple model of the economy-wide material
flows (from resource inputs imports and extraction to outputs of wastes
and emissions and exports) and the different flows and processes
quantified in the study is shown in the figure below. In the figure EoL
waste = end-of-life waste; DPO = domestic processed output.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEcaLhXVKkDTNf4xbC7N6N6MMDK11BLeM2mHtlTFPn3nOSUfg4TYAaGTPTkvJkw3Afcs_Qm1eikNZeyMJif5nXdV0ma9MaWAcJEYV_nnHvDwhS1pAv7GJeub4uck7mnTMlC2gWyP7GDbw/s1600/Fig-1-JInd+Ecol.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="182" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjEcaLhXVKkDTNf4xbC7N6N6MMDK11BLeM2mHtlTFPn3nOSUfg4TYAaGTPTkvJkw3Afcs_Qm1eikNZeyMJif5nXdV0ma9MaWAcJEYV_nnHvDwhS1pAv7GJeub4uck7mnTMlC2gWyP7GDbw/s400/Fig-1-JInd+Ecol.tiff" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The figure
outlines the material circulation within the socioeconomic system (SES).
This is the system referred to above. It distinguished distinguishes
three pathways of material flows of high relevance for the CE: energetic
use; waste rock; and material use. They propose a set of key indicators
to track material flow in this system:<br /><br />a) Material size: PMs (gigatonnes [Gt] and tonnes per capita [t/cap])<br />b) Stock growth: Net addition to stocks as share of PMs (%)<br />c) Degree of circularity within the economy: recycling as share of PMs (%)<br />d) Biodegradable flows: biomass as share of PMs (%)<br />e) Throughput: DPO as share of PMs (%)<br /><br />Here
PM’s are domestically processed materials as the sum of apparent
domestic consumption of materials (DMCs); extraction plus imports minus
exports and recycled materials.<br /><br />Then, following this set of
indicators, the authors prepared a Sankey diagram of material flows
through the global (world) economy, below. Details of the data that make
up the chart are in the paper. You may have to click on the figure to see all the detail.</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVJgs-R7pe3_-qyZ9ZItON77YDb_Gn76MNJxzvY3Fwg0dybDcUIetYjTaiF6H9qNJRHbK73zb9V4YRUiieeM6qfDDbJ9h02HWJlaI6vmPJk8hcJCdGd8qSgO_kl3IfYXgNt6cvv-ou9uE/s1600/Figure-2-Sankey-JIndEcol.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjVJgs-R7pe3_-qyZ9ZItON77YDb_Gn76MNJxzvY3Fwg0dybDcUIetYjTaiF6H9qNJRHbK73zb9V4YRUiieeM6qfDDbJ9h02HWJlaI6vmPJk8hcJCdGd8qSgO_kl3IfYXgNt6cvv-ou9uE/s400/Figure-2-Sankey-JIndEcol.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The authors state that the degree of circularity of the global economy measured as the share of actually recycled materials in total processed materials is quite low - only 6%. Most of the processed materials (66%) left the global economy as wastes and emissions and a large fraction (27%) were net additions to stocks of buildings, infrastructures, and other goods and products with long life spans. the material embodied in these products will enter the recycling stream only after significants periods of time. They note that materials used for energy generation dominate the inputs (44% of all processed materials). Although only 6% of all materials processed by the global economy are recycled and contribute to closing the loop, if all biomass is considered a circular flow regardless of production conditions, the degree of circularity increases to 37%.<br /><br />Two important observations can be made. First, there is a tremendous “accumulation” of materials due to in-use stock (from buildings to automobiles to appliances.) This is of course increasing as affluence increases overall accompanied by increased consumption and pollution increase (remember the IPAT equation?!). Thus, the system is bulking up on materials. If we consider the large amount of materials used for energy generation, closing the loop is not possible. That will keep the degree of circularity for those materials low.<br /><br />Second, to induce real circularity, attention to reducing the barriers for recycling materials used as raw materials in other processes or applications is important. This will require all the technologies mentioned in prior postings, eco-friendly design of products (including buildings and infrastructures), increasing product longevity, provides the same service with lower material requirement, and enabling re-manufacturing, repair and resale, and designing in product upgrades, modularity and component reuse. and, finally, also EOL<br />recycling.<br /><br />Here’s where manufacturing comes in! The statement “reducing the barriers for recycling” includes manufacturing products to allow them to be disassembled, materials extracted in as clean a state as possible and reused. Design is of course important but it is the synergy between design and manufacturing that enable this. Modularization, another challenge addressed by manufacturing technology, aids product longevity. And, more efficiently using materials, converting them into products (improved yield at a minimum) will allow provision of the same product service with lower material requirements. That will help reduce the amount of "bulking up" - whether in construction, consumer products or others.<br /><br />Approaches to the manufacturing challenges reviewed in the last paragraph have been mentioned in earlier postings. Manufacturing (in the broadest sense) is one of the key drivers (if not the key) to enabling a circular economy.</span>David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-5061825954692295842015-02-20T10:14:00.003-08:002015-02-20T10:19:42.999-08:00Climate change and manufacturing<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Or, when you’re in a hole … stop digging </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The
subtitle to this posting, the so-called “first law of holes,” is
attributed to various sources (earliest going back to 1911 in the
Washington Post) and is usually interpreted as “if you find yourself in
an untenable position, you should stop and change, rather than carry on
exacerbating it.” (from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_holes" target="_blank">Wikipedia</a>)</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">China became the world’s biggest <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jun/03/china-pledges-limit-carbon-emissions" target="_blank">greenhouse gas </a>emitter in 2006 overtaking the US due primarily to electricity generation and industrial processes. However the per capita carbon footprint of a Chinese person is still much lower than the average US person. This is not good. Increasing industrialization and the slippery slope to more consumption.<br /><br />So, what’s the hole and how do we stop digging?!<br /><br />Michael Oppenheimer, a Princeton University climate scientist, recently commented on a public radio talk program broadcast on KQED in the San Francisco Bay Area (Michael Krasny’s <a href="http://www.kqed.org/a/forum/R201411040900" target="_blank">Forum program</a>) about the recent release at the end of last year by the United Nations of one of its bluntest and bleakest reports to date on the dangers of global warming. The UN study, prepared by he Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warns that the world must cut nearly all greenhouse gas emissions by 2100 in order to head off the worst effects of climate change. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon urged world leaders to act, saying that “the science is unambiguous”.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_SPMcorr2.pdf" target="_blank">IPCC study</a> now argues that humans are affecting the climate with 95% certainty (this is the same degree of certainty with which the medical community links smoking to lung cancer … there is always a possibility that it is not the case but the preponderance of evidence indicates there is a cause-effect relationship). <br /><br />By way of background, the aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:<br /><br /> 1 Human-induced climate change,<br /> 2 The impacts of human-induced climate change,<br /> 3 Options for adaptation and mitigation.<br /><br />One of the first items in the IPCC “Summary for Policymakers” is the following clear and concise statement:<br /><br />“Human influence on the climate system is clear, and recent anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases are the highest in history. Recent climate changes have had widespread impacts on human and natural systems.” </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This
view (and statements like the one above) has come under fire … specially in the US … where for some odd reason
there is a movement against education, logical scientific thought and
reason, in favor of the opinions that might be politely characterized as
“less informed.” It’s not clear why that is. Everyone has a right to
their own opinion, of course, but consideration should be given to facts
and reality in coming to it, or one would think. Maybe the truth is hard
to face, harder to accept and plan for and harder still to accept that
there are others that may know more about a subject than we do.
Education used to help with this. But, many of the same anti-science (or
at least anti-this science) folks also are not big supporters of
education. So it goes. </span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Two
things it would be good to remind ourselves of … 1) there is value in
scientific expertise, properly and transparently carried out and 2)
humans will always want to improve their status/affluence.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">People
say manufacturing productivity will save the day but labor productivity
misses the point. We really need to think in terms of resource
productivity. You may recall that we had this discussion in a posting in
July 2013 as part of a discussion about the effective utilization of
resources and how resource productivity, rather than labor productivity,
might play into the argument
(http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.fr/2013_07_01_archive.html) This
discussion included again a reference to the IPAT equation (and the
attention given to the “T” part - impact per unit of GDP or the
so-called technology term) and need to increase by factor of 10 this
“productivity” to offset the growth of population and affluence.<br /><br />How so?<br /><br />Take
a look at how affluence (and the pursuit of it) as measured by
GDP/capita impacts energy demand/capita. The figure below, from McKinsey
Global Institute’s (MGI) report in 2013 on <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi" target="_blank">Resource Revolution: Tracking global commodity markets </a>shows the link between</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span></span> </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0aY0_zOWEXMFDsBTWaEpWaWEccQ4ZS62U0mwkMwx0_3KxJxcNpi0Cd7O45k32E121NeaGVAqjPPjYdQ2ySmJ1IvOSMcGIPFLIRwBzZgoP50EgNtiN-4Yi97zUJO3oDU0U2cjPuKX8kAA/s1600/cropped.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEh0aY0_zOWEXMFDsBTWaEpWaWEccQ4ZS62U0mwkMwx0_3KxJxcNpi0Cd7O45k32E121NeaGVAqjPPjYdQ2ySmJ1IvOSMcGIPFLIRwBzZgoP50EgNtiN-4Yi97zUJO3oDU0U2cjPuKX8kAA/s1600/cropped.tiff" height="282" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span></span></span></span> </span></span> </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">the consumption of energy and the growth in standard of living (as represented by GDP/capita). As countries become more affluent their energy use grows. This is due to a couple of contributing elements - for example, acquisition and use of more and more products that use energy and other resources (think refrigerators, automobiles, televisions, plumbing, etc.), transition from agricultural based economies to industrially based economies and the generation of electricity to power all of this.<br /><br />And, as it turns out, with the increasing levels of green house gases in the atmosphere from all this unbridled development the atmosphere gets warmer, polar ice starts melting and weather becomes more extreme. And for the unfortunate individuals living in low areas along major bodies of water (think Bangladesh) land is flooded and agricultural activities either are moved elsewhere or, more likely, abandoned. So, another driver then is the increased urgency of industrializing these economies to reduce the dependence on flood or weather challenged agricultural production - further aggravating the problem<br /><br />That’s digging the hole faster.<br /><br />How do we stop digging or, at least, slow down the rate of digging until we can stop? One solution lies in the slope and amplitude of the above curve (meaning how fast it is rising and to what level does it eventually get?). We can see from the above figure that the US is already there, and higher, than any of our competitors. But others, developing (or emerging countries) are determined to climb the affluence path. And we cannot really stop them. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But, is there any reason that the link between a certain level of affluence (as represented by GDP/capita) and the energy consumption to get to that level is fixed? It is if we think in the same way of resourcing, making, distributing and disposing of products. If every country that is working to increase the affluence of its inhabitants follows the lead of those that have gone before we are stuck (still in the hole). <br /><br />But why should they? The real question is how do we serve this inherent need but more effectively and not at the expense of the world - how do we stop digging?<br /><br />If we can find a way to resource, make, distribute and, instead of disposing of products, extend, rebuild or re-use products wouldn’t that be better? And, if we can do this while maintaining (or increasing) the value of the product in the eyes of the market or the consumer wouldn’t that be one way to address the “T” in the IPAT? Meaning, driving the impact per unit of value (or GDP) lower.<br /><br />From the manufacturing side, the things that can be adjusted to accomplish this include using cleaner (or renewable) sources of energy (same product value but at lower energy, hence, greenhouse gas, creation), using better manufacturing technology (same or better product value but at lower energy cost of production) to convert our materials into products, and better materials (reduced impact from extraction and processing of materials, less material, recovery of materials, etc.) <br /><br />But there’s more! How can we implement these novel manufacturing impact reducing ideas not just in the countries that are already way up the curve (or “developed”) but those that are climbing? We should be able to implement production technology in emerging economies as well so they don’t have to create all the challenges we have first. This will be the topic of a future posting since, obviously, the technology must match the situation.<br /><br />Wouldn’t this be better than just betting on productivity, traditionally measured, to save the day? Isn’t betting on productivity sort of like saying the solution is digging faster?<br /><br />In fact, our friends at McKinsey are already worried about this. In a recent, January 2015 <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/growth/can_long-term_global_growth_be_saved" target="_blank">MGI report</a> they ask the question with respect to global growth - can productivity save the day in an aging world? The manufacturing strategies mentioned above to reduce impact per unit of GDP will not work for service industries - a large part of the McKinsey study and many economies - but a more enlightened view of productivity, meaning resource productivity, will help drive these technologies for both emerging and developed economies alike.<br /><br />So, not only will we stop digging … we’ll throw away the shovel!</span></span><br />
<br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-1505557961961208132015-01-05T17:05:00.002-08:002015-01-09T20:21:13.414-08:00Material flow, the butterfly effect and consumer influence <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What is “your butterfly” up to?!<br /><br />Past
postings have included discussions of the Ricoh Comet Circle and the
circular economy as reasonable representations of several (perhaps
oddly) connected elements in a more holistic view of sustainable systems
as they influence green manufacturing. Connections in the context of
those discussions have been about “material” interactions and movement …
what comes from where, what goes where, where is “away” when something
is thrown away at its end of life?<br /><br />Over the new year break a
number of discussions came to light about the other side of the
“circular economy” coin … influence and effects beyond processes,
materials, transportation, energy, water and so on. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">This needs some explanation. </span>What
is referred to here is the influence decisions make on other decisions,
people, experiences, quality of life, etc. Behind the smooth
interconnectedness of our global economy sits a complex infrastructure
of people, places, things. Sometimes these are simply referred to as
“the supply chain.” But it’s not that simple. More importantly, if it
was that simple we’d not be addressing core values of the many actors in
the supply chain.<br /><br />Data, specially that collected at different
speeds and representing different “views” of the enterprise from top to
bottom as discussed in the last posting, is currently focused on these
material interactions and movements. As referred to in the previous
blog posting on the digital revolution, communication speeds,
computational capability and speed and the hardware spitting out the
data from machines and systems are more common, less expensive and more
reliable. But, do they tell us the whole story? Or, more significantly,
what would be need (or how would we analyze this data and use it) to
tell the rest of the story.<br /><br />This definitely needs some
elaboration! Let’s rely on an old analogy … the “butterfly effect.” One
can find lots about this on the web but, basically, according to <a href="http://www.wisegeek.org/what-is-the-butterfly-effect.htm#didyouknowout" target="_blank">WiseGEEK</a> “the butterfly effect is a term used in <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory" target="_blank">chaos theory</a>
to describe how small changes to a seemingly unrelated thing or
condition (also known as an initial condition) can affect large, complex
systems. The term comes from the suggestion that the flapping of a
butterfly's wings in South America could affect the weather in Texas,
meaning that the tiniest influence on one part of a system can have a
huge effect on another part. Taken more broadly, the butterfly effect is
a way of describing how, unless all factors can be accounted for, large
systems like the weather remain impossible to predict with total
accuracy because there are too many unknown variables to track.” The
site goes on to comment on the fact that there are skeptics that this
really works (due, for example, to things in large systems that tend to
dampen, or attenuate, effects) but they do argue that is is applicable
to complex systems beyond the weather. <br /><br />So, assuming here that
the economy (circular or otherwise) or at least the manufacturing
enterprise is less than or on the same order of complexity as the
weather … and that we believe that small things or changes can affect
large, complex systems, can we apply this to our discussion of green and
sustainable systems? More specifically, can we refer to any such
changes in terms of our interest in influences and effects? <br /><br />If
you do a “search and replace” for “flapping of a butterfly's wings” with
“human effects or behavior” and as well “weather in Texas” with
“sustainability”, respectively in the above definition of butterfly
effect … it reads:<br /><br />“ … the suggestion that the human effects or
behavior [as part of a supply chain] in South America could affect
sustainability, meaning that the tiniest influence on one part of a
system can have a huge effect on another part. Taken more broadly, the
butterfly effect is a way of describing how, unless all factors can be
accounted for, large systems like sustainability [of a supply chain]
remain impossible to predict with total accuracy because there are too
many unknown variables to track.” </span><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-1HGokRGGybBjHw4mKQuEgjDGgbbsLCmKfOFumSbDAPA_m0Z-kx5ybEe_XnfWw34BAbGYI-bcv32sKPny2VSLGRC5VrXstZUUFJUE9tcPU3BcV1DhK90JTevAEQNVVd-7X_6NZxQprwc/s1600/monarch.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-1HGokRGGybBjHw4mKQuEgjDGgbbsLCmKfOFumSbDAPA_m0Z-kx5ybEe_XnfWw34BAbGYI-bcv32sKPny2VSLGRC5VrXstZUUFJUE9tcPU3BcV1DhK90JTevAEQNVVd-7X_6NZxQprwc/s1600/monarch.tiff" height="167" width="200" /></a><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /> </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">OK … let’s go with this for a bit to see where it takes us! What are some of the butterflies that are at play here? How could human effects or behavior in, say South America, or China, or India, eventually have a huge effect on another part? The most obvious answers to this in the context of sustainability start with terms like “conflict minerals” and, then, slavery. Meaning, the "human behavior" affected by slavery, in this case undesired.<br /><br />One of the major human effects (butterflies) that is increasingly brought up is the derivation of work related to supply, handling and production of materials, products or components, specially within the supply chain, from persons not paid, or lowly paid, or otherwise captive by a system that exploits them for labor and other services. According to <a href="https://www.freetheslaves.net/page.aspx?pid=348" target="_blank">Free the Slaves</a> there are tens of millions of people in slavery today. They put estimates at from 21 to 36 million people worldwide. These people are forced to work without pay, under threat of violence, and they’re unable to walk away. They can be found in brothels, factories, mines, farm fields, restaurants, construction sites and private homes. Slavery is illegal everywhere, but it happens nearly everywhere according to Free the Slaves. Lisa Kristine, a photographer, has an excellent <a href="http://www.lisakristine.com/shop-image-collection/modern-day-slavery/" target="_blank">website</a> dramatically documenting this. This is real.<br /><br />Ones first reaction is “certainly I am not benefiting from or engaged in consumption that relies on slavery.” The links to slavery behind the products we buy and use is complex ... but there is a link. The story is told well at websites like <a href="http://slaveryfootprint.org/survey/#where_do_you_live" target="_blank">Slavery Footprint</a> which will calculate, based on the composition and origin of products one purchases and uses - including many of the most reputable brands in the markets how many slaves work for you. For example, what about the cotton in the t-shirt, or exotic materials in the smart phone or coffee beans in our cup of espresso? or, closer to green manufacturing, the alloying elements in the solder used in electronics production? </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Slavery Footprint makes a bold statement in answer to this - “It’s the supply chain, stupid. And it’s a supply chain that enslaves more people than at any time in human history.” You can take a survey on the website that starts with where you live, what kind of place you dwell in (rooms, autos, etc.), your eating habits, your consumed products in the home, jewelry, what you wear, what leisure activities you engage in, and, specially, the type of electronic gadgets you own and use and ends up with an estimate of<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> “how many slaves work for you.”</span><br /><br />My number was 27. I have no idea how accurate this is … but it’s not likely to be zero … so this is not good.<br /><br />So, what about butterflies and their effect? If one knows that slaves are contributing to the products they purchase and use due to, say materials (tantalum in a smart phone, cotton in underwear, constituents in food consumed or products (think cosmetics) used - and knowing the source of the materials and any slavery associated - for example from United Nations Labor Organization and its <a href="http://www.ilo.org/global/topics/forced-labour/lang--en/index.htm" target="_blank">Global Estimate of Forced Labor</a>), and then one finds out what are the brands that are the most prevalent in the use of these materials, and then stops buying and, more importantly, works with others to get more people to become aware how their purchasing behavior supports slavery, and then companies see the publicity or reduction of sales due to this awareness … and … finally, the companies change their purchasing behavior to source ethically … isn’t that a butterfly effect?! <br /><br />It could happen! <br /><br />Here is one butterfly example - focusing on conflict minerals in the Congo - called “<a href="http://www.raisehopeforcongo.org/content/initiatives/conflict-minerals" target="_blank">Raise Hope for Congo</a>." Among other helpful information it has a simple description of how the 3Ts—tin, tantalum, tungsten—and gold move from the mines of eastern Congo all the way to your cell phone. These minerals form the basis of some of our most popular technological advances in devices that most people use every day - game consoles, laptop computers, and mobile phones. Further, besides going into tin cans, tin is an essential ingredient of solder for electronic circuit boards. Tungsten has many uses in traditional manufacturing including drill bits and gold is commonly used in electronic components because of its conductivity and lack of corrosion. <br /><br />And, just as evidence that this is a real butterfly … even McKinsey has an essay on the birth of a consumer movement in their “<a href="http://voices.mckinseyonsociety.com/birth-of-a-consumer-movement/" target="_blank">Socially Conscious Consumer</a>” posting! That means this is real! With information (data!) consumers will naturally move from products whose provenance they cannot confirm or for which it is known that slavery is involved in the supply chain AND move to products that can prove they are ethical.<br /><br />But, the problem still exists. So, to make the full effect requires more butterflies!<br /><br />If you are a company with a large consumer base - think Walmart or Marks and Spencer or Proctor and Gamble or your favorite tech products company - this will cause change (or at least concern and then change!) And, if your product relies on some of these minerals or other materials for its functionality it is a strong encouragement to look for both responsible sources or alternative materials. In an <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/09/sustainability-angst.html" target="_blank">earlier posting</a> reference was made to a BCG-MIT Sloan Business School study about business cases for sustainability. The top motivation indicated in a business survey was improved brand reputation … next was increased competitive advantage. Butterflies work!<br /><br />These butterflies could be helped a lot by data. Transparency, linking back to the social impacts, labor practices/slavery, the influences mentioned at the start of this posting, is the key. Big data may help. But, the data most needed is that which is in this case most hard to come by. <br /><br />So, we come back to the question posed at the start of this post … what is “your butterfly” up to? Or, perhaps more correctly stated, can you get some butterflies “fired up”?! There are lots of opportunities. These influences will need to be included in our view of “circular economies.” We will need more and better data to tell us the whole story. Or, if the data is available, a better sense of how we need to analyze this data and use it to tell the rest of the story.<br /><br />Maybe this should be one of our top New Year’s Resolutions.</span>David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-9092961402605692682014-11-11T10:54:00.000-08:002014-11-18T14:03:09.838-08:00Data Schmata<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Show me some numbers!<br /><br />At
the end of the last posting the statement was made that it is necessary
to address green manufacturing and the role of digital enterprises in
the context of informing the customers each enterprise serves as well as
those to whom the enterprise appears as the customer. Importantly, this
has to be done both external to the organization as well as inside.
What does that mean? With apologies to again referring to past postings …
this starts with the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/09/green-manufacturing-technology-wedges.html" target="_blank">Google earth view of manufacturing</a>.
This was first introduced in a posting way back in 2009. It bears
refreshing everyone’s memory! The idea, shown in the image below,
envisions one starting at the enterprise level and then zooming in to
increasingly detailed parts of the manufacturing </span></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">enterprise spanning</span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghZioXdtfd_nD02hu6GYolHpd7ZujzR3TCMiVsm2hMQ_ZfI2i_F1N06qJz90FXoYllUtFRZomNBFWL5bOJV-y0Iy8zNnd-XJV5_zL2OEuGOAEdWMfku8CRxY8pvsKXgqOEWFpLBFYs-z0/s1600/Google-earth-updated-time-social.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="232" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEghZioXdtfd_nD02hu6GYolHpd7ZujzR3TCMiVsm2hMQ_ZfI2i_F1N06qJz90FXoYllUtFRZomNBFWL5bOJV-y0Iy8zNnd-XJV5_zL2OEuGOAEdWMfku8CRxY8pvsKXgqOEWFpLBFYs-z0/s400/Google-earth-updated-time-social.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> "Google-earth" view of manufacturing</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> the facility, line or system in the facility, the machines in the line, the tooling on the machines and finally the process on the machine. This image is updated from the first one shown back in 2009. Along the left side of the image are characteristics of data flow and operations. For example, data rates and response rates of the elements at the different levels range from weeks and months at the highest level reflecting long term planning to minutes and hours in the line for organization of production to seconds and minutes in terms of the machine functions operation as in “macro planning” and then milliseconds and microseconds at the tooling process levels. These data rates reflect the speed of changes occurring in some aspect of the element that has importance to the overall functioning of that element and, necessarily, the consumption of resources. </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The illustration below (from Vijayaraghavan, A. and Dornfeld, D., “Automated Energy Monitoring of Machine Tools,” CIRP Annals, 59, 1, 2010, pp. 21-24) shows this temporal aspect of decisions and impact more clearly. </span></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNCTyU83Kr-J9jpyelXlhPdHYjjWC1BIoRfgrV6Cd4lBubdn6MgNkG3wcIVPFY8Nq404U9VWrC7FgFtC-V29ef-H2wbjTjTfZgCB_X-dLbea5wGOe1DsywtAQCAXvWHE_ULyJ8W7_qB8k/s1600/data-rates-graph.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="290" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjNCTyU83Kr-J9jpyelXlhPdHYjjWC1BIoRfgrV6Cd4lBubdn6MgNkG3wcIVPFY8Nq404U9VWrC7FgFtC-V29ef-H2wbjTjTfZgCB_X-dLbea5wGOe1DsywtAQCAXvWHE_ULyJ8W7_qB8k/s400/data-rates-graph.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Required data rates at different levels of the manufacturing enterprise</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">To affect process control at the process level (here for a metal cutting operation - hence the reference to chips and cutting tool) one needs to have data and response at the micro/millisecond rate. As one moves higher in the structure the timing scale slows down proportionally. When reaching the enterprise level where supply chain management and asset management is of concern the decision and response time is longer. This is not, however, to imply that there are not decisions in supply chain management that do not occur more rapidly in some cases. In fact, the interesting thing about this type of representation is to look for the dependencies at lower levels on decisions and responses at higher levels. For example, a catastrophic tool failure at the process level that causes substantial down time and loss of availability of the machine and line could ripple up to the production planning and scheduling level if the disruption is substantial.<br /><br />Each interface between the different levels in the manufacturing enterprise, and their accompanying data rates, decision rates and response rates offers an opportunity to add noise to the system (meaning reducing the reliability of the data or, at least, increasing variability in the data) and must be accounted for.<br /><br />OK … but the Google earth view above has another side to it on the right. In this figure the potential range of influence and impact of the social effects (or dimensions) of the manufacturing enterprise are illustrated. These are challenging to represent in a simple drawing like this but will affect, at the process level in the facility, mostly the workers and support staff (for example, working conditions, safety, training, pay, etc.). The potential range of impact expands as one moves up the levels culminating with the supply chain which can have a national, regional effect or, within that country, a specific community (for example, air quality, water quality, healthcare and education, etc.). The “data rates” for acquiring impacts for these impacts (assuming one can quantify them sufficiently) will be similar as on the “hardware” side although may not be at the fastest level. Monitoring working conditions for exposure to chemicals or other contaminants for the worker at the machine may need to be done on a second or faster rate. Data on health care or educational levels of workers in the supply chain will be less frequent.<br /><br />Never-the-less, is one desires to apply the digital enterprise concepts to tracking the sustainability of enterprise operations from energy and resources to social concerns the data challenges will be impressive.<br /><br />We need to get more specific. What will this data look like? To illustrate, three examples are presented her derived from recent research at the Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability (LMAS) at Berkeley. They address a facility level view, a line level view and a machine level view. They all concern manufacturing that centers on production of machinery using a range of processes but with a strong component of machining and metals fabrication. Energy consumption is a common metric here as it is readily measurable. <br /><br /><i>Facility level</i> - The first example is drawn from the research of Dr. Nancy Diaz (N. Diaz, “Development of Energy Models for Production Processes and Systems to Inform Environmentally-Benign Decision-Making,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Mechanical Engineering, 2013) and focuses on the comparison of electrical energy intensity (kWh/meter squared/year) for four production facilities of a major Japanese machine tool manufacturer. The data reflects the consumption of energy by the machinery in the plant, the heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and lighting. The four plants address different parts of machine tool manufacturing from ballscrew production, the most precise (and hence requiring most exacting control of the environment - temperature and humidity) to less demanding machining and assembly. The figure below, from Diaz thesis, illustrates the dramatic range of consumption of energy per unit of floor area for the different factory functions and energy uses. The ball screw production facility has the highest HVAC energy intensity since these are exceptionally precise components that determine the quality and eventual performance of the machine tool and must be produced under the most stringent environmental conditions. Ball screws are turned by the motors on each linear axis of the machine and cause the table on which the workpiece is mounted during machining to move under the control of the computer program. They define the precision and accuracy of the machine movement (to a great extent).<br /><br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinXlvLGLCsTs3gCZCOSq4C22sGnFiSP-NzInpwEnmkrZ2tSnJIm1gRkPAXjkPzwSzAE4SLTDv_ObZjW1-qGOLV6VzNydv9-1HgzzEoPt-hOTpMyXfWrAVBELKrsRrB7jaymIpLBHkBu50/s1600/Mori-Production-Energy.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="242" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEinXlvLGLCsTs3gCZCOSq4C22sGnFiSP-NzInpwEnmkrZ2tSnJIm1gRkPAXjkPzwSzAE4SLTDv_ObZjW1-qGOLV6VzNydv9-1HgzzEoPt-hOTpMyXfWrAVBELKrsRrB7jaymIpLBHkBu50/s400/Mori-Production-Energy.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Facility level production energy intensity for machine manufacturing</span></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">What do we learn from this? First of all, at this level, it is clear what the “relative cost” of different manufacturing processes are in terms of energy (and likely other resources) … precision is the highest due to the requirements of the facility, quality of the consumables, etc. Think of the semiconductor industry as at the high end. Then, it also shows where the greatest potential for improvement is in the process efficiency to reduce this intensity. But, it is also necessary to determine the total impact , meaning, the measured intensity (energy / unit area) times the total area involved in this type of production. If this is a small part of the total production then it might not be the first priority. If it is a major component then it could offer big improvement. <br /><br /><i>Systems/line level</i> - The second example is drawn from the research of Dr. Stefanie Robinson (S. Robinson, "An Environmental and Economic Trade-Off Analysis of Manufacturing Process Chains to Inform Decision Making for Sustainability," Ph.D. Thesis, University of California, Mechanical Engineering, 2013) and focuses on the energy and resource consumption in a process chain with the objective of establishing a basis for trading off the potential for upgrading specific operations in the line. This was based on research conducted with a major heavy equipment manufacturer in the US. The figure below shows a schematic of a multiple operation process chain and a detail of one of the process operations with typical input and output of energy and other consumables along with waste and emissions.</span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCwhW721RQuBtgYbyfpf_aAkdrTyEaH4AOz9JPHhNP8Q1sOz-g0UOj0tUUvjUForwcDdRrbdRij1mhy7ejS-rBNw1eDjhISgBiWQ7GCeBlb-yOM-JcXw0wJOtC0mjaNd4XAY-76fN4igc/s1600/process-chain-detail.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="265" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhCwhW721RQuBtgYbyfpf_aAkdrTyEaH4AOz9JPHhNP8Q1sOz-g0UOj0tUUvjUForwcDdRrbdRij1mhy7ejS-rBNw1eDjhISgBiWQ7GCeBlb-yOM-JcXw0wJOtC0mjaNd4XAY-76fN4igc/s400/process-chain-detail.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Process chain and detail of individual process input/output</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span>With a representation of a process chain, and the individual operations, one then needs to determine the consumption and rate of outflow of the major consumables and waste streams. One can appreciate that it is necessary to do a rather detailed analysis of the inputs and outputs (wasted and worn tooling, scrap from production, leakages, etc.) to be accurate. With this data, the actual resource consumption and associated economic and environmental cost can be determined. Then, the impact of changes in any of the production steps can be evaluated both in terms of productivity and quality as well as environmental (energy, global warming, water) effects and associated costs as shown below.<br /> </span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEVfvP8WFPKxmWVNyF8G-lS3aAwvfGLvSMswVsUNijrigKsxLkwyR3H4vIsO4OMlivXiBgIAs-cWaHHLe6BbCkqa-Rwye-6459G9f7WD8srXaKzEmV_lj9uMYw5C00B_hl2DwIt7fiTiw/s1600/Use-+Costs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="145" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgEVfvP8WFPKxmWVNyF8G-lS3aAwvfGLvSMswVsUNijrigKsxLkwyR3H4vIsO4OMlivXiBgIAs-cWaHHLe6BbCkqa-Rwye-6459G9f7WD8srXaKzEmV_lj9uMYw5C00B_hl2DwIt7fiTiw/s400/Use-+Costs.jpg" width="400" /> </a> </div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> System consumption metrics and environmental and economic "cost"</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /><i>Process level</i> - This third and last example bores in more finely on the process level detail for a machining operation. Data from this level of analysis would feed into the systems/line level just described. This example also draws on the work of Dr. Nancy Diaz in the above cited thesis. This work developed a generic method for calculating energy consumption during a realistic machining operation on a precision milling machine based on constant and variable contributions of the material removal rate (MRR). The MRR is a driver of productivity in a machining operation and is based on real time data of the feed rate of the cutting tool, the cutting speed and the depth or width of engagement in the case of milling studied here. This data is now available in real time from the machine controller thanks to standardized interfaces and data formats such as <a href="http://www.mtconnect.org/" target="_blank">MTConnect</a> and associated <a href="http://www.systeminsights.com/" target="_blank">software</a>. It is also available from the numerical control program driving the machining operation (that is the path the cutting tool takes in the machining operation) but that is often inaccurate due to actual the performance of the machine in operation. The curve below shows the specific energy (Joules/cubic millimeter, J/mm3) as a function of MRR. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIsgZxJwWhWRiV091q-4vjAu1-FZf75tDeSUTDken0uKQDVBP0VqDdU2o-cvO8lmMlA763_FD5F05ona0O1gCj9A2mMxhGwqmLNEeDegmbq2tcqPRdS8UvrUxR9SRCD8N8NrvoKfSeeAM/s1600/Nancy-MRR-Curve.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="321" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiIsgZxJwWhWRiV091q-4vjAu1-FZf75tDeSUTDken0uKQDVBP0VqDdU2o-cvO8lmMlA763_FD5F05ona0O1gCj9A2mMxhGwqmLNEeDegmbq2tcqPRdS8UvrUxR9SRCD8N8NrvoKfSeeAM/s400/Nancy-MRR-Curve.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="text-align: center;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Specific energy consumption for different material removal rates in milling</span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The significance of this data is that the designer or production engineer can determine the energy to create a part feature from knowledge (either estimated from the tool path or measured in process). And, this was determined for a variety of machining conditions with different tooling - so it has some breadth of application. For other materials, however, the curve would likely shift up (if a more challenging material to machine - more energy per unit of material removed) or down (if easier to machine).<br /><br />So this is all driven by data! Lot’s of it collected at different speeds and representing different “views” of the enterprise. It is encouraging but humbling. Fortunately, as referred to in the previous blog posting on the digital revolution, communication speeds, computational capability and speed and the hardware spitting out the data from machines and systems are more common, less expensive and more reliable. The expression “drinking from a firehose” comes to mind! </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">But, the good news is that no one will be thirsty! Some of the tools for using this data in productive and green operations will be covered in the future.</span> David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-22285133074740781682014-10-27T15:34:00.001-07:002014-10-27T18:46:20.647-07:00The Digital Revolution<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Dejå vu all over again?!</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The last posting started the buildup to using data (from where ever) to drive innovation, clarity and transparency, business model/economics, institutionalization, and benchmarking for industry in general and, ideally, for green manufacturing as well. This data should include information on what any specific process or system is doing, what it is consuming or emitting, what the impact per unit process output is, what is the efficiency of conversion of resources into product, what it the efficiency of the cycle, how does one system or process compare to another doing the same thing, and how does the overall performance match up with competitors in the same market, company, division, or factory, and so on. <br /><br />The upshot of the discussion is that it should be possible to close gaps between what is needed to understand the items above and what is available. Further, the idea is to leverage the capabilities of big data and the digital views of an enterprise to help close this gap. <br /><br />First, it is helpful to try to understand what big data and digital enterprises actually mean and then how they relate to our conversation here. A web search for the term “digital enterprise” turns up a lot of product pitches and some useful definitions. For example, <a href="http://searchcio.techtarget.com/definition/Digital-enterprise" target="_blank">WhatIs?TechTarget </a>has a posting which offers the following definition - “A digital enterprise is an organization that uses technology as a competitive advantage in its internal and external operations.” The “technology” is referring to information technology. This is rather broad. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Let’s take a look backwards to see what can be learned. In November 1994 Fortune magazine published an article by Gene Belinsky titled “The Digital Factory.” This turned up the other day when I was rummaging through some old files in my office. The article predicts a range of impacts that the digital factory will have from customization of products “literally in quantities of one while churning them out at mass production speeds” to allowing supply chain integration, micro factories and breathing new life into the “beleaguered U.S. machine-tool industry.” Referring to it as “soft manufacturing” it even proposed that the most astounding effect could be on employment where it “could stabilize or even increase the number of production-worker jobs in the U.S.” The article gives a number of excellent examples where this is being employed circa 1994 and the improvements realized and highlighting that “software is becoming more important than hardware - more important than machine tools - in American factories. And smart humans are back, replacing dumb robots.” It even predicted the importance of 3-D printing for prototyping. <br /><br />Well, the first part is right … software became more important than machine tools - in the U.S. at least. Since this report the U.S. machine tool industry has essentially collapsed and in its place are builders from Japan and Germany with machines of incredible sophistication. They figured out that software AND the machine tool was a powerful combination. We didn’t. The second part is not. Robots staged a comeback, thanks to capable planning software, better cheaper sensors and efficient motors and controllers combined with a better understanding of where they work best and with what tooling systems. Pick up any trade magazine or “Google” robots and you’ll see an amazing array of co-worker robots doing sophisticated tasks. And productivity in the U.S. is up (see the post in <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013/07/the-effective-utilization-of-resources.html" target="_blank">July 2013</a>) but manufacturing employment has not keep up with growth. <br /><br />Is this current buzz about digital manufacturing just another Fortune 1994 article that, 20 years later, will look equally out of touch? Not likely. The downfall of the last prediction was that as software was growing in importance and capability, the “network” (or what was then connecting things) was infantile compared to what we now enjoy. Ditto for data flow from machines and systems. Sensors on production machinery (not just the position feedback data for machine tool axes or robot arm positions) were expensive, intrusive, slow to respond and often measured things that did not truly reflect the process or element being observed. One could go on at length about this but we’d be way off the path.<br /><br />Not so now. The examples cited in an earlier posting on the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-internet-of-green-things.html" target="_blank">internet of things</a> showed systems communicating an impressive volume of data at high rates - enabling essentially real time behavior and response. The companies that make machinery that link into these systems (the folks that picked up where most U.S. machine builders stopped) learned how to employ the better cheaper sensors and efficient motors and controllers combined with a better understanding of where they work best and with what tooling systems that made robots more pervasive. <br /><br />So, where does that leave us with respect to greening manufacturing and sustainable production?<br /><br />Maybe to focus this a bit, let’s go back to the deep well of knowledge provided by McKinsey! In a May 2014 article titled “<a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/organization/the_seven_traits_of_effective_digital_enterprises" target="_blank">The Seven Traits of Effective Digital Enterprises,</a>” authored by T. Olanrewaju, he and his colleagues go over examples of “transformational” traits of the successful digital enterprise. These are, in usual McKinsey style, rather high level and inspirational rather than execution oriented. But there are some nuggets of practical ideas - where practical here means “what can we do on the shop floor?”<br /><br />One is “measure digital value not digital interactions.” This is the digital interactions are “digital-washing” equivalent to "green washing." Results or progress against a benchmark or a fiducial is what counts. But first you need the yardstick. <br /><br />Another is “don’t accept historical norms; question the status quo; create a plan covering every function, product, business unit and location.” This is none other than the “Google earth view” of manufacturing identifying the elements, interfaces and value at all levels - leave no stone unturned. And, more over, it is looking for effectiveness and not only efficiency. Doing the suboptimal or wrong thing well is not a substitute for doing the correct thing and doing it well (some of this was covered in <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013/10/effective-utilization-of-resources-part.html" target="_blank">earlier postings</a>). The last one to note (and please do read the whole article at the link above to get the full story) is “follow the money.” This addresses the “reduced impact for higher value” that has been trumpeted in this blog for some time. But, too often, follow the money is replaced by “follow the energy” and ignores other important consumables - materials, time, water, even labor. Energy is important for sure but many other econsumables are important too - maybe more important in some situations!<br /><br />The report states “Many organizations focus their digital investments on customer-facing solutions. But they can extract just as much value, if not more, from investing in back-office functions that drive operational efficiencies. A digital transformation is more than just finding new revenue streams; it’s also about creating value by reducing the costs of doing business.” Wow. We can use that. Do a “search and replace” here for digital investment, back office functions and finding new revenue streams replace them with sustainability initiatives, manufacturing processes and systems and reducing utility bills, respectively. And insert “environmental” between “costs” and “of” in the last line. <br /><br />Or … following all the substitutions it looks like this. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><i>Many organizations focus their sustainability initiatives on customer-facing solutions. But they can extract just as much value, if not more, from investing in manufacturing processes and systems that drive operational efficiencies. A digital transformation is more than just reducing utility bills; it’s also about creating value by reducing the costs of doing business.</i> And, digital enterprises should be able to do this better and insure measurable progress.<br /><br />But there is also a “customer-facing” aspect to this of course. That’s where the circular economy comes in. Every enterprise <i>has </i>customers and <i>is</i> a customer to some other enterprise. That’s what’s shown in the Ricoh Comet Circle and, more abstractly, in the circular economy. <br /><br />It is necessary to explore this with a circular economy in mind … starting with how to inform the customers our enterprise serves as well as those to whom we appear as the customer. And this has to be done both external to the organization as well as inside. We’ll continue with this in the next posting. <br /> </span><br />
<br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-62837504139963712432014-09-05T10:04:00.001-07:002014-09-05T17:24:54.809-07:00Moving to the next level <span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Or ... Mind the (data) gap<br /><br />The interest and focus on sustainability is now more evident than ever before. Advertisements in increasing numbers trumpet some aspect of a product or a service as “sustainable”. Usually it is not but that doesn’t stop the attractiveness of using it to sell. Business has also noticed and there is increasing attention to “business plans for sustainability” and evidence that customers, if not investors, reward some businesses for trying to be sustainable. But, as mentioned last time, to is not clear if we are making any real progress.<br /><br />Some attribute this to the presence of a “green gap.” The opening statement in a report from 2011 by <a href="https://assets.ogilvy.com/truffles_email/ogilvyearth/Mainstream_Green.pdf">Ogilvy and Mather </a>sums up the “green gap” as follows:<br /><br />“While we have been relatively good at getting people to believe in the importance of more sustainable behaviors, practices, and purchases, we have been unable to convert this belief fully into action” (p. 13). <br /><br />For reference, the “green gap” is defined in the report as the gap between consumers’ green intentions and green actions. One might argue that this applies to business, and manufacturing, as well.<br /><br />This is the other end of the equation with respect to increasing value while reducing impact (as it defines what consumers are willing to count as “value” in the domain of sustainable products) and it provides animation for implementing the circular economy. If there is no motivation or perceived reward and the value is not recognized then circular concepts, unless masked in conventional marketing or product functionality/value, will not be successful.<br /><br />There was frustration expressed at the meeting held as part of the process to generate this report that, while many people in leadership positions - the so-called “thought leaders” - keep hammering away on the issues and need for action, the mainstream consumer is not really responding. Or, if responding, not responding rapidly or massively enough.<br /><br />The chart below illustrates this point. In a survey of behavior in the US and China (PRC) respondents were asked indicate the importance of certain activities in terms of their definition of living a green or sustainable lifestyle (called “importance”). The then were then asked with respect to these activities whether or not they usually do the activity (called “behavior”). The gap between the two responses shows the divide between belief and action ... the “green gap.” The activities asked about were: </span><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">- taking public transportation, <br />- walking or biking to work<br />- purchasing locally grown food<br />- using eco-friendly cleaning products<br />- recycling bottles/cans/paper.<br /><br />These
are not, granted, the whole set of behaviors defining a green lifestyle
or preferences (nothing about water, or reusing products, etc.) but are
a reasonable set of trade-offs. And, of course, they are life style
preferences and not directly related to production of goods and services.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgplMd7Lur8r1pJd3XNDcRR0zko_Z6aOUUDWXUP3KM7k-p_OycMaq6Zohl8KLKK8gPiOAVkjfuJ0vWVsmhqiRqqaB6-oArpp7520y2x8YDut1NvyQfZyDyyQP-8CkNjJdqedq1QR9390nk/s1600/gap+by+country.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgplMd7Lur8r1pJd3XNDcRR0zko_Z6aOUUDWXUP3KM7k-p_OycMaq6Zohl8KLKK8gPiOAVkjfuJ0vWVsmhqiRqqaB6-oArpp7520y2x8YDut1NvyQfZyDyyQP-8CkNjJdqedq1QR9390nk/s1600/gap+by+country.jpg" height="217" width="400" /></a></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />China and the US were selected due to the impressive contributions to global warming of their economies.<br /><br />The report mentions the desire of major corporations to assume more leadership in developing practices and products that address climate change, for example, but also the realization that in many cases the biggest impact of the product is in the use phase and not in the production or manufacturing phase. This has been discussed extensively in the past in this <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2010/10/wheres-beef.html">blog</a>.<br /><br />The suggestion was that rather than trying to get every one motivated to follow a better course on might need to talk to a larger audience than just the “committed greens” who already get it. Oglivy called this larger audience the “massive Middle!” This is not to be confused with the ‘silent majority’ of the Nixon-era (Google it if you don’t follow!) Ogilvy focuses on consumer issues, and angst about contrasting desires with needs, but also gives a set of 12 ways to close the gap. Some of these have great applicability to business in general and manufacturing in specific. The objective is to “make green mainstream.” </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">The 12 ways Ogilvy lists (with my translation to manufacturing space) are :<br /><br />1) make it normal; in industry speak, institutionalize green behavior and practices.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />2) make it personal; Oglivy intended this to be linking products to individual behavior; for manufacturing this is getting everyone in the enterprise connected to the activity.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />3) create better defaults; in manufacturing this would be to have a series of options so that the fall back is not business as usual but another green alternative.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />4) eliminate the sustainability tax; Oglivy relates this to the usually higher cost of green product; the manufacturing analogy is to insure that the economics are sound and there is a solid business model for this way of operating.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />5) bribe shamelessly; this is not your usual bribe to get around regulations or influence decisions! This is rewarding products and services for behavior; in the manufacturing world, this means recognizing leaders, and their products and technologies.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />6) punish wisely; shaming people into good behavior has some benefits if applied carefully they argue; in manufacturing, this is likely best done by benchmarking and providing metrics so that the organization can see where it is and where it needs to go. The days of “the flogging will continue ’til moral improves” are over!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />7) keep innovating; this is easily translatable to manufacturing; in fact, sustainability drives <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.hk/2013/11/sustainability-as-driver-for.html">innovation</a> in manufacturing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />8) lose the crunch; Ogilvy is referring here to the image of green as Birkenstock wearing granola munchers (hence the “crunch”!) … which is not really an issue in Berkeley! It really means making green more mainstream; For manufacturing that is what this blog is all about.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />9) turn eco-friendly into male ego friendly; This is Oglivy’s way of making green less “girly green” (their words … not mine!); This does not really relate to manufacturing as, for example, green machine tools are not considered less manly than conventional ones.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />10) make it tangible; convert the tangible benefits of sustainable to something that can be easily visualized; manufacturing is attempting to do this all the time - from a cost, performance, impact, efficiency or effectiveness aspect.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />11) make it easy to navigate; truth and transparency … easy to follow the dots; this maps directly to manufacturing and can relate to "<a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.hk/2011/11/tools-of-trade-part-3.html">eco-roadmaps</a>" and similar to be discussed more in future postings.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />12) tap into hedonism over altruism; help consumers see the fun on the green side of life; not sure how we can relate this; manufacturing is to many of us “fun” already - so one can suppose that green manufacturing can be “more fun”?! Let’s not push this one too far.<br /><br />So now you are probably asking, how do we connect this back to big data?! If one follows the above discussion about the key steps to address this massive middle as it relates to manufacturing, one can look at the ways outlined above and see some common elements<br />needed to enable these for manufacturing - all dependent on information.<br /><br />The innovation, clarity and transparency, business model/economics, institutionalization, benchmarking, etc. are all driven by data. Data on what your process or system is doing, what it is consuming or emitting, what the impact per unit process output is, what is the efficiency of conversion of resources into product, what it the efficiency of my cycle, how does one system or process compare to another doing the same thing, how does my performance match up to my competitors in the same market, company, division, or factory, and so on. All determined by data. And data flowing from machines, systems, facilities and enterprises.<br /><br />So we can close this gap, at least as it relates to green manufacturing, by leveraging the tools and capabilities of big data and the a digital view of our enterprise. This is where the story picks up next time with more details and some examples.</span><br />
<br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-10109031447942567782014-08-08T17:59:00.000-07:002014-08-08T17:59:25.191-07:00Circular economy, II<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Progress and big data</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">At the end of the last posting the question was posed “can the “internet of things” be part of the circular economy? Can this connectedness push consumers to consider more sustainable behavior, or create products that provide increased value with lower impact, or allow effective recovery of resources at end of life?” The answer proposed was the very definitive “it depends”! Which is true - depends on reaction (or pro-action) of consumers, depends on reaction (or pro-action) of companies, and depends on reaction (or pro-action) of governments and non-governmental organizations (NGO’s).<br /><br />In attempting to insure products and services in the manufacturing sector that reduce impact per unit of value created we’ll need to be careful in accounting for all the impacts generated and environmental return on investment. <br /><br />That means data … and metrics. Good data (not just streams of “information”) and real metrics that relate the engineering and manufacturing efforts with machine, system, enterprise and product performance.<br /><br />This starts at how we measure growth in the economy. If we do not consider the impact of growth, broadly speaking, then the growth is pushed without consideration of the collateral issues - energy, water, materials consumption and the relevant impacts as well as the important social impacts across the supply chain. <br /><br />A recent article posted on the Aljazeera America site, written by Sean McElwee, makes the point well. The article, titled “<a href="http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/7/gdp-gross-domesticproductproblem.html">Gross Domestic Problem</a>” (after GDP more traditionally meaning gross domestic product), states that “GDP is a fine measure of the goods and services produced within a country’s borders. However, it does not tell us how sustainable that growth is or at what cost it comes.” The sustainable part here refers to the business sense … will it keep going. It is the last bit “… at what cost it comes” that should interest us. They author refers to a paper in the January issue of Nature by a group of social scientists who argue that “If a business used GDP-style accounting, it would aim to maximize gross revenue — even at the expense of profitability, efficiency, sustainability or flexibility.” And this time they mean the real sustainability! <br /><br />The <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/development-time-to-leave-gdp-behind-1.14499">Nature article</a> states that the gross domestic product is a misleading measure of national success! They cite Robert F. Kennedy’s observation that the country’s GDP “measures “everything except that which makes life worthwhile.” And the result is … while world GDP has made impressive gains since it was introduced around 1950 “progress” defined broadly may not be so impressive. <br /><br />The problem is seen in the graph below, showing growth in GDP over the last 5 decades and the comparable growth in GPI (so-called genuine progress indicator). The Nature article explains that the the GPI is calculated by “starting with personal consumption expenditures, a measure of all spending by individuals and a major component of GDP, and making more than 20 additions and subtractions to account for factors such as the value of volunteer work and the costs of divorce, crime and pollution.” Meaning, it can include the impacts of “progress” such as destroying wetlands or depleted water resources.)<br /> </span><br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF1EsWF0p0nGfddEqT7-3KOd8BuELB3vzM7AIpC15jeWxE-QfFQn14rpYU3-vJLHA2TQ90HQ6huTAT9GFqVRNhwmj_Fpc5I8Z_yVckw4gG_DVM9HOslyPAxYjslEenltVVEvw8TuJKI4o/s1600/GDP2.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjF1EsWF0p0nGfddEqT7-3KOd8BuELB3vzM7AIpC15jeWxE-QfFQn14rpYU3-vJLHA2TQ90HQ6huTAT9GFqVRNhwmj_Fpc5I8Z_yVckw4gG_DVM9HOslyPAxYjslEenltVVEvw8TuJKI4o/s1600/GDP2.jpg" height="400" width="346" /></a></div>
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Figure: GPI and GDP over time (source: Kubiszewski, I. et al. Ecol. Econ. 93, 57–68 (2013).)<br /><br />If you believe the GPI metric - one can see that sustainable progress is not progressing!<br /><br />And corporations that follow the piper of growth without accounting for well-being because it is what the accounting systems and shareholders expect are just doing good business.<br /><br />And countries that try to increase GDP/capita because that is associated with affluence (recall the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013/05/green-and-frugal-part-ii.html">IPAT equation</a>?) and everyone wants to be more affluent.<br /><br />That’s why Patagonia founder Yvon Chouinard cited in the last posting was so upset with corporations and “business as usual” … no one wants to restrict growth. <br /><br />The Aljazeera article sums it up nicely. “GDP doesn’t even include the price of everything. For instance, the International Monetary Fund found that our failure to price the effects of carbon dioxide amounts to a $1 trillion annual subsidy for fossil fuel corporations. Conversely, the Clean Air Act produced $22 trillion in economic benefits from 1970 to 1990, according to an EPA retrospective study — much more than the estimated $523 billion it cost. In each case, GDP ignores crucial public benefits and the externalities of economic growth.”<br /><br />As a result, Aljazeera notes from a landmark study titled “<a href="http://www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr/documents/rapport_anglais.pdf">Mismeasuring our Lives</a>”, “what we measure affects what we do, and if our measurements are flawed, decisions may be distorted.” So, making a choice between promoting growth as measured by GDP and protecting the environment may be false choices if the environmental degradation can be calculated and appropriately included in measurements of economic performance. </span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">I hope Mr. Chouinard read this! Actually, he would hope more corporate CEO’s read this!<br /><br />But, this posting is not just ranting about the inequities created by a GDP centric view of the economy … what’s the solution and how does manufacturing fit in .. or, at least, big data, help.<br /><br />Interestingly, this problem (coming up with the right way to measure things so the true impact or benefit or cost can be determined) is something engineers, specially manufacturing engineers, have been dealing with for a long time. In the field of manufacturing we often quote Lord Kelvin (aka Sir William Thomson) who stated “To measure is to know" and following on “If you can not measure it, you can not improve it." In lay terms, if you can’t measure what you made you don’t know whether or not you made it! Seems time to extend to this to measuring real growth on the way to sustainable development. <br /><br />And that is where big data (or any data!) comes in! The circular economy, using resources effectively and efficiently - let’s say productively - will rely on the linking of a host of consumers all along the supply chain (from material sources to converters to manufacturers to distributers to consumers and back - recall the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/09/sustainability-angst.html">Ricoh comet circle</a>). <br /><br />According to <a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/operations/how_big_data_can_improve_manufacturing">McKinsey</a> (the “Wikipedia of the Fortune 500 set”), in manufacturing big data can be useful for identifying ways to increase yield in a number of processing operations by identifying “insights” into production that were overlooked due to complexity of the process, large numbers of variables, many differing process stages, etc. If this same ability to uncover “insights” could extend to the broader impacts of manufacturing across the supply chain that would give both a sound technical basis as well as a reliable economic measure of the value of improvements.<br /><br />This gets us back to the one element of the IPAT equation we can actually influence - Impact/GDP. That is, increasing the value created to the consumer or the market with reduced impact measured however you think is important (recall we indicated this would have to be on the order of 10X reduction to offset increased population and demand). <br /><br />Maybe the real ratio we should be concerned with is GDI/GDP! Genuine progress per unit of GDP growth. If we have (or can get) the data for our manufacturing enterprises to determine with sufficient accuracy the impact on GDI of our production and our products this might give us a basis for making decisions.<br /><br />Then, we could move beyond eco-charts plotting reduced environmental damage vs economic benefit where we assume a 1:1 relationship is sufficient to a plot of GDI vs GDP (on a local scale of course) to evaluate our decisions from design to production.<br /><br />This will be challenging. It will have to be “circular” as we cannot gain the resource productivity that drives this any other way. <br /><br />We’ll need to work on more details in future postings!</span>David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-84291685397034089982014-06-27T13:48:00.000-07:002014-06-27T22:10:49.997-07:00The internet of (green) thingsOr … what would my refrigerator tell me if it could talk?<br />
<br />
Recently I was at a conference on manufacturing where I was caught in in an avalanche of buzzwords … cloud, big data, internet of things, industrial internet, connectivity, connected revolution and so on. This feeding frenzy of connectivity and data is driven by a number of things, real and imagined. Businesses see opportunity for enhanced productivity and reduced time from design to production. Other businesses see opportunities for providing services and products to an informed customer - all at much greater speed. Others still see a chance to offer analysis capabilities to convert the “firehose stream of data” to a manageable set of results and metrics.<br />
<br />
For example, in the manufacturing domain, <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/cio/2014/06/25/ge-wants-to-spawn-industrial-internet-startups/">General Electric</a> is driving the creation of an “industrial internet” which GE expects will define how “industrial equipment with sophisticated sensors will be linked over a network that connects people to machines and machines to one another to boost efficiency.” They won’t be taking to refrigerators, at first, but jet engines to indicate potential maintenance requirement or, closer to the factory, failure potential and maintenance needs of sensor-enabled machinery on the factory floor.<br />
<br />
In the manufacturing space. a leading commercial computer aided manufacturing (CAM) software provider, DP Technology/ESPRIT, has introduced a cloud-enabled tool path planning capability - cloud-enabled CAM. The ESPRIT <a href="http://www.dptechnology.com/launch/esprit2014/cloud-enabled.asp">MachiningCloud</a> Connection gives programmers (the smart folks that create the instructions and select the tooling to allow sophisticated numerically controlled machine tools to create the complex physical components that make up manufactured products) access to complete and up-to-date tooling product data, cutting hours of programming time by eliminating manual tool creation. This would have been done with physical paper catalogs of tools, configurations, cutting inserts, and other peripheral hardware to make it work (think of shopping at Sears or Target before websites, online catalogs or Amazon! If you are old enough to recall Sear’s paper catalog which was like a phone book for a large city, if you are old enough to remember phone books too, it is an interesting but long and manual process!). This capability simplifies the selection of cutting tools and, better yet, offers a list of recommended cutting tools based on machining features and machining sequences that are planned. Finally, the programmer or manufacturing engineer can simulate the machine operation and behavior with accurate 3D models of tool components and assemblies.<br />
<br />
In the design and collaboration space, Autodesk has introduced <a href="http://www.autodesk.com/products/autodesk-360/overview">Autodesk 360</a> for design innovation and collaboration. More than just two dimensional “drafting,” this cloud-based tool that provides free online data storage and a powerful, secure set of tools that improves the way engineers and others can design, visualize, and simulate anywhere and with “virtually infinite computing power”. This also simplifies collaboration among co-designers and customers, and streamlines workflows.<br />
<br />
And then, of course, things that talk to you. Top of this list is probably the <a href="https://nest.com/thermostat/life-with-nest-thermostat/">Nest thermostat </a>recently acquired by Google, Inc. By use of training cycles, and observing your “behavior,” it learns what temperatures you like and builds a personalized schedule. Nest says if one teaches it efficient temperatures for a few days within a week, the thermostat will start setting temperature schedules on its own. And, with the Nest app you can connect to the thermostat from a smartphone and, if arriving home early (or later) change the temperature miles from home.<br />
<br />
So what is the internet of things anyway? My favorite first “go to” source is a Google search which, usually, gets a Wikipedia hit right off … for “internet of things” <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_of_Things">Wikipedia </a>defines the term (and acronym IoT) as referring to “uniquely identifiable objects and their virtual representations in an Internet-like structure.“ Apparently this term has been in discussion since the early ‘90s and was formally proposed by Kevin Ashton in 1999 (Ashton, Kevin, "That 'Internet of Things' Thing, in the real world things matter more than ideas," RFID Journal, 22 June 2009.) though the concept has been discussed since at least 1991. Wikipedia goes on to explain that In 1994, the Internet of Things was known as “control networks,” which Reza Raji discussed in an IEEE Spectrum article as “[moving] small packets of data to a large set of nodes, so as to integrate and automate everything from home appliances to entire factories.” <br />
<br />
Home appliances to entire factories! All communicating with other devices, computers and, presumably, people.<br />
<br />
But what might the effect of this integration and resulting actions be? Better productivity? Increased consumption? Smart consumption? Smart and sustainable consumption? It depends.<br />
<br />
Capitalizing on this drive to connectivity Amazon has recently introduced their own “smart phone." The <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/19/technology/amazon-introduces-fire-smartphone.html?hp">New York Times</a> article characterizes this as “a device that tries to fulfill the retailer’s dream of being integrated into consumers’ lives at every possible waking moment — whether they are deciding where to eat, realizing they need more toilet paper or intrigued by a snatch of overheard music.” Meaning … sell, sell, sell!<br />
<br />
So, are we making progress or not? A quote from Patagonia founder <a href="http://www.greenbiz.com/news/2013/03/01/patagonia-founder-takes-aim-elephant-room-growth;%20accessed%206/16/2014">Yvon Chouinard </a>in a conversation to an audience of hundreds of CSR officers and aspiring eco-preneurs may offer some insight. He said “If these Fortune 500 companies are now cleaning up their act, then why is the world still going to hell?” “The elephant in the room is growth: you make an energy-efficient refrigerator, so then you buy two of them. Not one public company will voluntarily restrict growth to save the planet.” Well … that does not sound very encouraging. <br />
<br />
So, back to the discussion about the circular economy. <br />
<br />
Can the “internet of things” be part of the circular economy? Can this connectedness push consumers to consider more sustainable behavior, or create products that provide increased value with lower impact, or allow effective recovery of resources at end of life? <br />
<br />
First reaction is, again, … it depends! If this pushes consumers to by more “impactful” products because they are or can be connected but don’t offer proportionally increased value … then this is not a good sign and Yvon Chouinard will cry foul! If the connectedness can drive a reduction in impact (due to better efficiency, or more effectiveness, consumption only when in use and at reduced rates of consumption, for example) then probably yes. Meaning, if it can affect consumer behavior in a positive direction then this is worth exploring. <br />
<br />
This difference between consumer actions and consumer wishes for sustainable consumption is commonly referred to as the “green gap”. We’ll discuss this more in future postings.<br />
<br />
So we will need to be careful about tracking the cost-benefit or, at least, providing some feedback to the consumer on the performance of the product or, sadly, this will simply be another round of technology driving increased consumption. And that’s not circular.<br />
<br />
We’ll continue with the Circular Economy, Part 2 in the next blog - which will follow sooner than this one did to the last posting (!).David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-49725092474262190902014-03-27T13:07:00.002-07:002014-03-29T13:59:06.248-07:00Creating the Circular Economy, Part IOr putting some wheels on the Ricoh comet circle<br />
<br />
The end of the last posting (an embarrassing long time ago!) spoke of the need to do a better job of communicating just what sustainability is. That is, of course, one of the objectives of this blog - or at least as it applies to manufacturing, design and all things related to product creation and production.<br />
<br />
An early concept introduced way back in <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/09/sustainability-angst.html">September 2009</a> was the circular nature of sustainability as practiced in society represented by the <a href="http://www.ricoh.com/environment/management/concept.html">Ricoh Comet Circle</a> reproduced here below.<br />
<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg1skUFZJmPvYEwGKQhNjZbwqbh99QQrszIwYu44akeFI_1EN9vMMYypyCDiN3e3g32brRLG5B20CytLqw4Xu6OiFliZ2sTAzMUGJ_5JHH9PVgXPZgqNy2nw1JlUqLsXfClgBpQcUnIGQ/s1600/Comet+Circle-cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgg1skUFZJmPvYEwGKQhNjZbwqbh99QQrszIwYu44akeFI_1EN9vMMYypyCDiN3e3g32brRLG5B20CytLqw4Xu6OiFliZ2sTAzMUGJ_5JHH9PVgXPZgqNy2nw1JlUqLsXfClgBpQcUnIGQ/s1600/Comet+Circle-cropped.jpg" height="173" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
The circle diagram visualizes nested loops of tight or loose linkage between the consumer and the forward and reverse supply chain. The forward loop is from material extraction through production to delivery and use. The reverse loop (at the bottom of the comet) is after the consumer is done with the product and winds back through recycling, recovery, and return to material supply chain. Usually when a green supply chain is mentioned it is in the context of the return loop - resource recovery. That is only half the battle and, if the forward loop is done correctly, is much easier.<br />
<br />
The nested loops start with the consumer as “the comet’s core” and can be you or me at home, or a company buying something (machinery, paper, electronic components) and the loops represent “the comet’s tail”. A key idea of the comet circle is that the closer to the consumer that the circle loops … the more sustainable/green is the scenario.<br />
<br />
I use this image in my sustainable manufacturing class as well as in other presentations to illustrate the circularity concept of material/product use and reuse as higher valued than destruction and disposal.<br />
<br />
As part of the earlier blog posting about the comet circle the strategy behind the creation of the circle was summarized from Ricoh as:<br />
<br />
1) including the identification and reduction of environmental impact at all stages (Japanese continuous improvement at its best and key to identifying elements of the operation that need to be identified, quantified, and reduced, eliminated or otherwise offset).<br />
<br />
This places priority on "inner loop" recycling (the highest value resources are those either returned, after repair/upgrade, to the consumer or converted into product and used by their customers along with minimizing the resources, cost, energy needed to return a used product to "the state of highest economic value.”<br />
<br />
2) institute a multi-tiered recycling program (reduce the consumption of new resources and generation of waste)<br />
<br />
3) create a more economically rational recycling system. This is important and is part of establishing the business motivation for green manufacturing, including the original production stages in the equation. That is, the "green supply chain," and<br />
<br />
4) establishing a partnership at every stage of the supply chain. This partnership discloses materials used in production and in the product, transportation alternatives, etc.<br />
<br />
To quote from Ricoh on the logic represented here - ”A sustainable society must also establish a recycling system in which products and money flow in opposite directions in both post-product-use stages and original production and marketing stages." At the same time, it is important to establish a social system that helps people to be aware of environmentally-friendly business activities and buy products with less environmental impact.<br />
<br />
Flows of money and products at both the incoming side and the outgoing side of product use and social systems that influence customers awareness and buying preferences - that's novel and the combination drives business strategy.<br />
<br />
More recently this concept is referred to (or at last popularized) as the “circular economy.” I am not sure which came first. The easy source of all information (buyer beware) - Wikipedia - indicates that it might trace to a book by Walter R. Stahel and Geneviève Reday-Mulvey in 1981 titled “Jobs for Tomorrow, the potential for substituting manpower for energy” and published by Vantage Press, New York, N.Y. The book was based on a report for the European Commission on the potential for the service-life extension of goods as a sustainable strategy to create jobs, save energy (and GHG emissions) and prevent waste. The micro and macro level analysis was done to two sectors, automobiles and buildings, in France. There is more history on this on the Product-Life.org website under circular economy. <br />
<br />
Stahel’s work generally proposed four major goals: product-life extension, long-life goods, reconditioning activities and waste prevention. It also promoted the importance of selling services rather that products when possible. There will be more on this early work in following postings. <br />
<br />
The Ricoh Comet Circle was likely motivated by this. And, of course, the “Cradle to Cradle” book by Braungart and McDonough is an outgrowth of this thinking as well.<br />
<br />
But there is more history to this! <br />
<br />
The concept of “full circles” animates many
early philosophical and religious thinking. I heard an individual
recently at a meeting refer to the Hindu teachings of full circle or
full cycle (Saṃsāra) and the repeating cycles of birth, life and death
(reincarnation) goes a long way back. <br />
<br />
More recently, the <a href="http://www.ellenmacarthurfoundation.org/">Ellen Macarthur Foundation</a>
and, McKinsey building on the Macarthur Foundation work, have been
detailing business aspects of implementing the circular economy. The
thesis is to move away from the “take, make, dispose” system and
replacing it with restoration.<br />
<br />
The image below, from a McKinsey
Quarterly Report, No. 1, 2014 titled “Shaping the Future of
Manufacturing” as part of a section on “<a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/manufacturing/remaking_the_industrial_economy">Remaking the industrial economy</a>”
illustrates how, in a circular economy, products are designed to enable
“cycles of disassembly and reuse” and thus reducing or eliminating
waste. You may want to click on the image to get a larger view.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd03w31Yu5vjeWmLpk2e_O3THJdplxj7MbaDPECW_hPpM8EaUrntpYbUh2iU1Tkb0oUtPaxbbsUTB-YL52Zz9jnOQzP7K4T8-ZDGhv4nIw69rySwwict6z78y4EzPvnQtIqoyPoSGmx6I/s1600/Circular-Big-Exhibit-2.tiff" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjd03w31Yu5vjeWmLpk2e_O3THJdplxj7MbaDPECW_hPpM8EaUrntpYbUh2iU1Tkb0oUtPaxbbsUTB-YL52Zz9jnOQzP7K4T8-ZDGhv4nIw69rySwwict6z78y4EzPvnQtIqoyPoSGmx6I/s1600/Circular-Big-Exhibit-2.tiff" height="358" width="400" /></a></div>
<br />
There is a comparison between these cycles in biological-based materials on the left of the illustration and “technical materials” on the right side. At the bottom of the illustration are notes about minimizing “leakage” - the loss of opportunities to re-use materials before returning to soil for biological materials and landfilled/burned for technical materials.<br />
<br />
The loops in the illustration (for example, on the technical material side, of maintenance, re-use/redistribute, refurbish/remanufacture, etc.) mimic the loops in the comet circle. <br />
<br />
As with green manufacturing, this is a concept that is logical and possible to illustrate schematically but can be challenging to actually implement in practice - that is, to put some wheels on the concept so we can move with it! <br />
<br />
We’ll do more with this in the next posting - Part II of Creating the Circular Economy.<br />
<br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-25038106577191036112014-01-21T04:32:00.000-08:002014-01-30T12:01:13.950-08:00New Year's Resolutions<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">or ... Things that renew our faith in the future!</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">Over the New Year in the US (perhaps other places too) there is a tradition of making a set of “resolutions” or pronouncements and promises that one will follow in the upcoming year that will make things better. These often have to do with personal behavior (“I will try to like my co-workers”) or health (“I will work out more and eat less”) or finance (“I will try to live within my budget”) and so on. Typically these last a few weeks or months before the reality of daily life kicks in and they are forgotten. But, no worries, another new year is just around the corner.<br /><br />In thinking about new year’s resolutions this time around and this first posting of the new year it seemed worth while to cite a few things that, relative to green and sustainable topics, encourage one to try to stick to at least an effort to become more sustainable.<br /><br />So, I took a survey of what I had seen recently that made me encouraged. These are, in no particular order, reviewed below. The continuation of the discussion in the last posting on increasing the effective utilization of resources will come up in the next posting. But … these bright spots below certainly encourage an atmosphere that lends itself to better resource productivity.<br /><br />First of all from my student researchers. We had a retreat in our lab back in November and we posed the question “What would a sustainable world look like? This came as a result of a provocative question posed to the audience at the Verve conference in San Francisco this Fall by Paul Hawken. He mused that maybe we should start concentrating on what a sustainable world embodied rather than just increasingly long lists of what is not sustainable about the world. This made good sense - sometimes the easiest way to identify the way forward is to reverse the way back!<br /><br />So, in response to the above question about how the world would look if it was sustainable, the following responses, prefaced by “I know the world is sustainable because …” were noted:<br /><br />- I am able to achieve my aspirations without limit<br />- I can meet my needs without “excess consumption”<br />- I have access to enough information to make truly informed decisions about consumption<br />- as an engineer, I can clearly see the connection between design, manufacturing, and impacts<br />- where to the extent possible, all output of activity or consumption is reused efficiently in the creation of new products, new energy, new capabilities, and<br />- I have the optimal level of control over my environment and products. I am able to use information to adapt to my environment. I live in a smart environment that adapts to my needs (e.g. NEST thermostat).<br /><br />Not bad … and, as engineers, lot’s to work on there both for consumption and provision of goods (as manufacturers).<br /><br />Encouraging for sure. There was more discussion which will come up in our continuing discussion about resource productivity. And, the grad course in Sustainable Manufacturing is taught at Cal again this spring so this list will be expanded thanks to input from a larger group of students.<br /><br />Second, the McKinsey Global Institute publishes reports from time to on strategic observations, insights and trends in business and the world. These are invaluable both for their content and for the obvious expense that went into them (McKinsey is not cheap!). In July 2013 they published a report titled “<a href="http://ww.mckinsey.com/insights/americas/us_game_changers">Game changers</a>: Five opportunities for US growth and renewal.” Granted, this is US centric but the potential, given the prominent role of the US economy is impressive. <br /><br />So, what are these five and what does it have to do with sustainable manufacturing? They are: <br /> - Energy: Capturing the shale opportunity <br /> - Trade: Increasing US competitiveness in knowledge-intensive industries </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"> - Big data: Harnessing digital information to raise productivity <br /> - Infrastructure: Building a foundation for long‑term growth <br /> - Talent: Investing in America’s human capital<br /><br />I will not comment on the first one as the issues of “bang for the buck” in terms of the environment are still being resolved. It clearly however offers a great source of energy close to us and not affected by global politics (the current debate in the US Congress not withstanding!).<br /><br />The McKinsey report says that these five are all on this list because the technology breakthroughs underpinning these couple with the “changing costs of capital, labor, and energy around the world; policy innovation at the state and local levels; or new evidence-based understanding of how to address long-standing problems.” They go on to explain that, specifically, “… the shale boom, for example, is boosting trade competitiveness, particularly in energy-intensive manufacturing, as the shift in input costs caused by cheap natural gas has made the United States a more attractive place to base production. Big data can play a role in raising the productivity of knowledge-intensive manufacturing for export, maximizing infrastructure assets, and facilitating new personalized digital learning tools.” Addressing education and workforce training, a “talent revolution” will be needed to train tomorrow’s energy engineers and big data analysts, as well as the skilled<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span>workforce needed for a 21st-century knowledge economy.” One result is “longer-term enabling effects that build competitiveness and productivity well beyond 2020.” <br /><br />The impact in productivity and efficient use of resources is what should intrigue us. The use of big data analytics in manufacturing and across production processes and systems<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span>and product design<span style="font-family: inherit;"> <span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">offers many opportunities for progress. </span>E</span>ngineers can link computer-aided design with data from production systems to minimize production costs and raw material use (increased yield!). During production, sensors in equipment can feedback information to minimize disruptions by monitoring operations for breakdowns and wear and, then, signal for preventive maintenance. Finally, the use advanced simulation techniques to create 3D models of new processes and factories (and the resources they consume) can make green manufacturing embedded in industry. With enough impact industry can become<span style="font-family: inherit;"> </span>sustainable. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">This will require some "readjustment" in the way we develop the workforce to support this new way of operation - but that is for another discussion. </span></span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><br />Third, and this is heartening, a recent comment published in <i>Nature</i> by Robert Costanza and colleagues (Vol 505, 16 January 2014, p. 283) made the bold statement “Time to leave GDP behind” (!). The authors note that “When GDP was instituted seven decades ago, it was a relevant signpost of progress: increased economic activity was credited with providing employment, income and amenities to reduce social conflict and prevent another world war. But the world today is very different from the one faced by the global leaders who met to plan the post-war economy in 1944 … The emphasis on GDP in developed countries now fuels social and environmental instability. It also blinds developing countries to possibilities for more-sustainable models of development.” Yes! <br /><br />This is a must read! Those of us working to build sustainable manufacturing systems … in support a sustainable world … can only gain when the terms are clear, the metrics are logical and well defined and the impacts of our actions “fit” the environment we are working in. <br /><br />Finally, speaking of “terms”, GreenBiz.com had a short piece by Anna Clark poste<span style="font-family: inherit;">d </span>on January 15, 2014 titled “Should 'sustainability' still be a buzzword in 2014”? Many don’t think it should ever have become a buzzword ... but stuff happens. </span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: inherit;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;">And this question, of course, is posed by some of the same folks whose coverage has made the word overused and, sometimes unfortunately, linked to things or actions that are marginally sustainable or, at best, green. In fact, the first line of this short piece reads “Every New Year brings fresh jargon to the sustainability field. The practice of coining new phrases can breathe vitality into old ideas, but marketers also can overuse the tactic in their quest to sell books and training seminars. (I am guilty, too.)” She admits that our goal is a sustainable economy but the word sustainable is poorly defined and “squishy”. Her new year’s resolution is to “do a better job at communicating sustainability. Not just the concept, but also the word.” Yes!<br /><br />That’s what we aim to do too! So, that’s one resolution I can keep. <br /><br />More next time.</span></span> </span><br />
<br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-23102742191709340672013-12-05T15:35:00.001-08:002013-12-05T15:39:52.536-08:00Extending the life of products<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Déjà vu all over again!<br /><br />The last few postings have been concentrating on effective utilization of resources and resource productivity as a driver for manufacturing (including green manufacturing) innovation. In <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013_10_01_archive.html">part 3</a> of that series a list of seven ways to improve resource effectiveness was given. These were (and see part 3 for the details):<br /><br />1) Avoid use of a resource in the first place<br />2) Light-weighting <br />3) Increased yield <br />4) Reduced footprint of resources<br />5) Insure high re-use yield and low "cost" of reuse<br />6) Leveraged resources<br />7) Extended life <br /><br />It's that last one that is the focus in this posting - extended life. With apologies to Yogi Berra (who I believe is the source of the subtitle of this posting!) the goal is to get people to use products longer or, conversely, give products a longer useful life. Sort of a "ground hog day" for products if you recall the film by that name some time ago. Simply put, the longer a product lasts the lower the amortized impact - impact/unit of time. And, this is generally better. <br /><br />One caution - as was covered in the posting on <a href="http://reen-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013/03/green-and-frugal-part-i.html">Green and Frugal</a> (including graphs on trade-offs in replacement of products) the one circumstance that might cause this "longer is better" scenario to play out badly is if the technology of the product (or material, or production methodology or operating characteristics) change, meaning for the better or lower impact or consumption, then it might actually be better to replace the product more frequently. Of course you'd want to 'do the numbers' on this to make sure the net effect was positive.<br /><br />If this is to work, it requires the ability to update products, accept "older" styles, design and build products to last longer, change consumer preferences to accept the longer use of a product, etc. The focus here is on "updating the product" both technically as well as, to some extent, stylishly.<br /><br />Before launching into this "make the product last longer" one might ask - What do consumers want? I am not an expert on consumer preferences. But, it seems reasonable that, with respect to product use by a consumer, there are some simple categories that can define behavior. So, at the risk of getting way in over my head on this, let's charge ahead.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">These categories might be consumers who:<br /> 1) replace a product when it is broken (as long as the product is still needed)<br /> 2) replace a product when they are tired of it or it is "out of style"<br /> 3) replace a product when the technology is improved enough (as opposed to simply style)<br /><br />I am aware that there is a class of consumer called the early adopters or some thing like that - folks who will always buy the latest and greatest. That is not the group targeted here.<br /><br />Let's wade in a bit deeper on the discussion. So, with these three classes of consumer behavior for replacement, the second and third category fits for products that are still functional but no longer cutting edge. They might still be productive and even relatively low impact. Within these categories I can imagine that there are products for which style actually does not matter as well as those for which style is important. By style here I mean appearance or the ability to engender envy from others. A wash machine might be an example of a product that would not be swapped out because it did not look stylish anymore. A smart cell phone would.<br /><br />We'd like to design products that lend themselves to longer lives or design for upgrading - basically, design for long life. There are likely two basic strategies. For "not style" products, just make the components out of materials and processes that last longer. For "style" products, make them so that the technological and/or stylish features can be easily upgraded when new technology and/or style comes along.<br /><br />Can we do this?<br /><br />I recently read an article in the Christian Science Monitor weekly edition of November 25, 2013 discussing in some detail what Chris Gaylord, the author, called "snap together a custom cell phone." See a companion article <a href="http://www.csmonitor.com/Innovation/2013/1029/Build-your-own-smart-phone-Motorola-and-Phonebloks-say-yes">on line</a>. The Monitor article describes Motorola's (now Google's) project "Ara" (details on the <a href="http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/motorola-project-ara/">phone</a>) for the development of a new user designed smart phone. The customer would be able to assemble bits and pieces of the phone, sort of like a Lego toy, and select battery type and life, camera features, covers (front and back), etc. According to Paul Eremenko of the Motorola Advanced Technology and<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"> Projects
group, writing on a blog posting, their goal is " to drive a more
thoughtful, expressive, and open relationship between users, developers,
and their phones." He goes on to state that this will "give you the
power to decide what your phone does, how it looks, where and what it’s
made of, how much it costs, and how long you’ll keep it."</span></span></span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span>Again, it's the last bit that caught my eye - how long you keep it! </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Here might be an early example of a product clearly in the "replace when something new comes along" category that is designed to be upgraded both technologically and stylishly. </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">An image of modules designed for this "build it yourself" phone is below.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCB0QEPcgiP6EzmSI-YPg7fMXbSfVQrqAZZYKoZLTbv5AK7hPeO_2XJDi8_e3DO37_o5brwzyrGXXDadEzI-i6qvIvL9adTazBtGhWsxFupaonoo_Gw8_L0L5qzNKyt49rUTzcWxr-lWU/s1600/project-ara-modules-650x0.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="213" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjCB0QEPcgiP6EzmSI-YPg7fMXbSfVQrqAZZYKoZLTbv5AK7hPeO_2XJDi8_e3DO37_o5brwzyrGXXDadEzI-i6qvIvL9adTazBtGhWsxFupaonoo_Gw8_L0L5qzNKyt49rUTzcWxr-lWU/s320/project-ara-modules-650x0.png" width="320" /></a></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"></span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br />Another statement about this was also impressive - it could offer a solution to the 'alleged wastefulness' of the current two year cycle of cell phones.<br /><br />Will this work? Who knows … consumers are finicky but if this is the start of a trend towards trying to address the throwaway instincts in much of society today it could be an important first step. And it will be a great challenge to manufacturers to come up with the goods.<br /><br />Can it work technologically? Concerns raised in the Gaylord article include "packaging" … meaning essentially bespoke design to fit all the necessary parts into a very small package. This is pretty challenging if all the pieces are functionally individual to allow the "'plug and play" mode. </span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">We'll follow this ... and the whole discussion about re-making products to keep them current without discarding them.</span></span><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br /></span></span>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Finally, I posted this on the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/GreenManufacturingBerkeley">Green Manufacturing Facebook</a> site earlier today ... but in case you missed it ... this is a great video following the <a href="http://apps.npr.org/tshirt/#/title">path of a T-shirt </a>from conception to market. It makes you think about what you buy to wear and where it came from!</span></span>David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-63277427031569787302013-11-09T19:18:00.002-08:002013-11-09T19:18:55.944-08:00Sustainability as a Driver for Manufacturing Innovation<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">7th Wu Lecture at University of Michigan<br /><br />I was invited to present the Seventh S. M. Wu Lecture in Manufacturing Science at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor on October 28th, 2013. The topic was billed as "innovation in advanced manufacturing" but I used the occasion to shift rapidly into a discussion about sustainability as a driver for manufacturing innovation - a familiar topic to reader of these posts!<br /><br />The lecture was videotaped and made available to stream on-line to anyone interested. In place of a written blog this time around I am offering this lecture instead. There is a link to the video post of the lecture at the end of this text section.<br /><br />The content of the lecture is as follows:<br /><br /> - Some history from Madison<br /> - Advanced manufacturing<br /> - What is sustainable manufacturing <br /> - How is sustainability linked to productivity and innovation? <br /> - Riding the “wave of big data”<br /> - Some examples<br /><br />Some explanation about this lecture series and my involvement … Professor S. M. Wu was a pioneer in the application of statistical methods to the understanding and optimization of manufacturing processes. While he was at UW-Madison in the late '70's I was one of his PhD students (actually PhD #29 out of some 118!). He later moved to Univ. of Michigan in Ann Arbor where he had a very successful career applying these methodologies to a host of challenging manufacturing problems in, among others, the auto industry. He passed on in 1992 and this lecture series is in his memory. So, it is appropriate to start with some nostalgia about the "Madison days" as a grad student with Professor Wu. You can skip that if you like.<br /><br />The actual lecture starts at slide 7 (00.07:48 into the video). The video presentation is accompanied with the slides presented at the bottom of the screen.<br /><br />This is an hour long lecture. If you want to watch the whole lecture you might like to break it up into pieces. The start times in the video for each section are listed below:<br /><br /> - What is sustainable manufacturing - 00.09.45 <br /> - How is sustainability linked to productivity and innovation? - 00.22.59<br /> - Riding the “wave of big data” - 00.30.00<br /> - Some examples - 00.41.06<br /> - Material selection/process + system design - 00.41.06<br /> - Social impacts and manufacturing - 00.46.45<br /> - Leveraging manufacturing for maximum effect - 00.50.27<br /> - Summary/Acknowledgements - 00.57.12<br /> - Question and Answers - 00.59.30<br /><br />Please follow this link to the <a href="http://inst-tech.engin.umich.edu/leccap/viewer/r/MLQNOJ">Seventh S. M. Wu Lecture in Manufacturing Science</a>. The lecture is introduced by Professor Jun Ni of Univ. of Michigan, also a student of Professor Wu.<br /><br />I'd appreciate any comments or feedback on the content on the lecture.</span><br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-21982742686781305702013-10-21T17:21:00.001-07:002013-10-22T08:06:20.480-07:00Effective utilization of resources, Part 3<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So … what is effective?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the last posting we covered some additional background about “resource productivity” as a driver for innovation in (sustainable) manufacturing. That also covered some of the established definitions of resource productivity and gave an an example of efficient production technology relative to a metal forming manufacturing process. This process, in exquisite alignment with the Ricoh Comet Circle (see an earlier posting on the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/09/sustainability-angst.html">Comet Circle</a> if you don't recall this!) Returning product back to the consumer with as little intervention from recycling, reprocessing, etc. as possible.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In trying to tie the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_productivity">resource productivity</a> concept to the labor productivity measure so commonly referred to these days, the Wikipedia definition was cited as:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">“… the quantity of good or service (outcome) that is obtained through the expenditure of unit resource. “</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">The Wikipedia definition distinguished between “the efficiency of resource production as outcome per unit of resource use (resource productivity)” and” the efficiency of resource consumption as resource use per unit outcome (resource intensity).”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Our interest stems from (if you recall earlier postings in this series) the desire to wring more value of materials/processing/product per unit of impact to the environment (measured however you choose - greenhouse gas (GhG), other pollution of land, water or air, etc) as well as minimize the use of resources in the process - materials, water, other consumables and, of course, energy.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This fits with our fundamental focus, in this blog, on manufacturing. I had mentioned the "creating value" discussion (and <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013/02/innovation-and-sustainability.html">blog</a> posting) in my graduate class last semester - meaning that there are three fundamental ways to create wealth (real, new wealth founded in tangible assets): agriculture, mining, and manufacturing.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">A recent article in SME's <a href="http://www.sme.org/MEMagazine/Article.aspx?id=19393&taxid=1430">Manufacturing Engineering</a> magazine noted, with respect to the "other" forms of economic activity as follows:</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">"Think about it. Bankers, lawyers, doctors, barbers, landscapers—they all provide services. Those services are valuable, but they don't, in themselves, create wealth. Financial instruments and financial dealings don't create wealth—they may package wealth, shift it around, and enable investment in wealth-creating enterprises, but they don't directly create wealth." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This interpretation is not universally accepted .... But, it clarifies our thinking on the role of manufacturing and resource productivity. Might we then say that the most efficient use of resources is in manufacturing (I'm not forgetting agriculture or mining here but will stick to what I know!) because it both creates new wealth and provides the products that help increase, or at least maintain, a standard of living?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, then, the logic is something like this (and this is built on the IPAT equation). To offer a sustainable manufacturing solution one must be able to show that the value created by a manufactured product must be large enough so that there is a factor of 10 improvement in value to impact (this is from the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013_07_01_archive.html">July 1, 2013 blog</a> where this idea of resource productivity for sustainable manufacturing was introduced). This means that, worse case scenario from a resource productivity point of view, assuming that value of the product is constant, the productivity must increase by a factor of ten.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ok, how can this happen? In the last posting we reviewed some work in Germany on reusing material from end of life automotive sheet metal components by circumventing the normal recycling procedure (i.e., transport to recycler, crush, melt, alloy, cast, form to sheet) and directly "re-forming" some components from recovered sheet material - paint and all.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">This is certainly one way. You will recall that, even with this German process, the amount of material recovered as a "new formed product" was not 100% of the reformed sheet - maybe closer to 60% tops. So, a ways to go but in the right direction.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Here are a number of ways to improve resource effectiveness in an attempt to get the the "10X" improvement needed (in no special order and I am sure there are others):</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">1) Avoid use of a resource in the first place; if the product can be successfully manufactured with fewer materials that can be a big advantage.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">2) Light-weighting; this was mentioned in an <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013/08/resource-sustainability-and-embedded.html">earlier posting</a> and is often associated with the automotive and aerospace industries. This is the use of materials with higher strength to weight ratios than the current materials (either by shape, alloy content, material type or strategic reinforcement) that can meet the operating requirements of the product with less material. Common examples are fiber composite materials in planes and aluminum or high strength steel in automobiles.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">3) Increased yield; this is the "Allwood effect" after Julian Allwood of Cambridge University (see "<a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2011/07/less-is-more-part-3.html">Less is More, Part 3</a>"). This is the introduction of improved manufacturing processes that result in more product from the input material stream. Reduced scrap, for example, in process. A corollary of this would be improved processing to reduce defects in production.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">4) Reduced footprint of resources; this focuses on the utilization of resources that require lower energy for processing or preparation for use in production. The advantage of this is, at least, honest accounting of potential outsourcing of resource impacts and, at best, inclusion of these external impacts into the analysis.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">5) Insure high re-use yield and low "cost" of reuse; Re-use yield refers to the degree to which similar value of use is maintained for re-used materials - that is, not substantial down-cycling. The example in the posting about the German automotive reuse of sheet metal is an example of "same-cycling" of materials - sheet metal part to sheet metal part in the same industry (if possible). Cost of re-use is the added resources required to reuse the resources! It is not usually free. This must be accounted for in the reuse calculation to insure that, net, you have a positive balance.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">6) Leveraged resources; The term "<a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2012/04/leveraging-manufacturing-part-1.html">leveraging</a>" as used in green manufacturing has been discussed before with respect to processes. This is the use of process technology that, in itself, is not particularly low impact but adds features to the product that, over its life time, makes a much lower impact. This is ideal for "use phase" heavy impacts. Same idea for resources. In spite of 4) above, there may be situations in which the use of a "higher impact" resource may be leveraged to produce a much lower life cycle impact in the use phase of a product.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">7) Extended life (amortized resource burden); Simply put, the longer a product lasts the lower the amortized impact - impact/unit of time. Generally this is better. It requires the ability to update products, accept "older" styles, design and build products to last longer, change consumer preferences to accept the longer use of a product, etc.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Note that all of these suggestions assume the "value" of the product is not reduced!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">We will dig into some of these more in the future. I have examples of most of them and, as I think about this, will probably add one or two more strategies for improving resource productivity and effectiveness.</span>David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-51237100886962687982013-08-29T21:33:00.001-07:002013-09-05T20:39:38.743-07:00Effective utilization of resources, Part 2<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Examples of productive use of resources<br /><br />The posting in July discussed thinking more seriously about “resource productivity” as a driver for innovation in (sustainable) manufacturing paralleling the focus we have on labor productivity. We all know the examples of more output per worker hour thanks to a wide variety of developments from automation to training and scheduling. But, for getting at the root of “impact per unit of GDP” and setting up a path for reduction of that impact, resource productivity is one very important element – perhaps the most important if we think holistically about the costs of resources.<br /><br />Turns out, not surprisingly, that there is a lot of information available about resource productivity.<br /><br />For example, the <a href="http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/statistics_explained/index.php/Glossary:Resource_productivity">European Union</a> (EU) defines resource productivity as: <br /><br />“… a measure of the total amount of materials directly used by an economy (measured as domestic material consumption (DMC)) in relation to economic activity (GDP is typically used). It provides insights into whether decoupling between the use of natural resources and economic growth is taking place. Resource productivity (GDP/DMC) is the European Union (EU) sustainable development indicator for policy evaluation.<br /><br />Resource productivity of the EU is expressed by the amount of GDP generated per unit of direct material consumed, i.e. GDP / DMC in euros per kg. When making comparisons over time or between countries it is important to use the correct GDP units so that the figures are comparable and changes are not due to changes from inflation or in prices.”<br /><br />One needs to be careful that we consider carefully the contribution of services (which one might argue are typically less material intensive than, say, automobile manufacturing) to GDP growth so we are not seeming to be improving the “by to fly ratio” as we’ve discussed in the past but it is really reflecting shift, or growth, in other forms of commerce. But, I am not an economist so that’s sufficient warning for me!<br /><br />Wikipedia defines <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resource_productivity">resource productivity</a>, and couples it to sustainability, as:<br /><br />“… the quantity of good or service (outcome) that is obtained through the expenditure of unit resource. “<br /><br />“Resource productivity and resource intensity are key concepts used in sustainability measurement as they attempt to decouple the direct connection between resource use and environmental degradation. Their strength is that they can be used as a metric for both economic and environmental cost.” <br /><br />The Wikipedia definition distinguishes between “the efficiency of resource production as outcome per unit of resource use (resource productivity)” and” the efficiency of resource consumption as resource use per unit outcome (resource intensity).”<br /><br />They note that from the point of view of sustainability, the objective is to maximize resource productivity while minimizing resource intensity.<br /><br />So, how do we do this?!<br /><br />At the recent International Academy for Production Engineering (called <a href="http://www.cirp.net/">CIRP</a> – but that is an acronym for the French translation of the name – College International pour la Recherche en Productique!) General Assembly in Copenhagen, a working group meeting on Efficient & Effective Resource Utilization (EERU) met to discuss exactly this issue. The group is working through the various stages from design to end of life in production that impact this and a number of researchers presented ideas towards that goal. The focus of this particular EERU meeting was resource efficient production technologies and the presentations included water and material utilization in a range of industries from automotive to semiconductor.<br /><br />As an example of efficient production technology, Professor Erman Tekkaya of the Technical University of Dortmund gave a number of examples for material utilization in metal forming applications. Professor Tekkaya started with a figure from Professor Kurt Lange of Stuttgart from some 20 years ago based on his work with the German auto industry. The diagram shows the utilization of material (essentially the “buy to fly ratio“) for a range of manufacturing processes. It also shows energy use per mass of finished part.</span></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNAgpl0CkmqbeNGFrhBWwykZx-PcZrSUHe0IqYlLMrq6pPDjexkF_iQ6N0URsI-nGYNUXjiBK2E76UYZ8u1OifuH2U_26GUXeJPYFknF2KCYsNOZfFcth4O9v6x47t9211n-KwSj2dMWU/s1600/energy+use+figure.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="130" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhNAgpl0CkmqbeNGFrhBWwykZx-PcZrSUHe0IqYlLMrq6pPDjexkF_iQ6N0URsI-nGYNUXjiBK2E76UYZ8u1OifuH2U_26GUXeJPYFknF2KCYsNOZfFcth4O9v6x47t9211n-KwSj2dMWU/s400/energy+use+figure.jpg" width="400" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />We see that for processes like cold forging (formation in dies with the material at room temperature – called “net shape processing as the material is reformed with little loss) the material use is very high (85% due to the fact that the process generates little scrap) versus cutting processes which typically have a lot of chips and waste generated as a “subtractive technology.“ (The third type of material processing is “additive“, like welding and 3-D printing – we’ll be talking about this more in a later posting.) As a result, similar to the figures we saw from Allwood in previous postings (see the “<a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2011/07/less-is-more-part-3.html">less is more</a>“ series), processes such as cold forming have lower energy/mass values. It must be pointed out that the numbers in this figure do not reflect the whole process chain needed for these operations such as manufacturing of the tooling and dies for forging. But, the numbers are indicative of the impact of more efficient material use.<br /><br />Professor Tekkaya’s presentation covered four examples – including direct material saving during processing (here a clever washer production process that used a technique similar to wire forming for nails to create washers with no waste due to the center hole or remainder from a blanked sheet), and reduced primary energy of initial material.<br /><br />Let me elaborate on this second one.<br /><br />The traditional life-cycle of metallic components, say automobiles, is that at end of life the vehicle is crushed (after some components are removed), collected, re-melted and recast as strip or sheet material and then reformed into new components – say a new hood for an automobile. Allwood points out that although this is helpful, the waste from the first production oft the hood (sheet metal forming is not net shape) and the requirement to re-melt, etc. is a tremendous energy burden on the material. Professor Tekkaya showed an example of reusing portions of a recovered automotive sheet metal part and a side panel from a PC with novel forming processes to create “new“ products without going through the traditional material recycling cycle.<br /><br />The figure below, from Tekkaya, shows the creation of re-formed parts and process sensitivity to controlling the sheet feeding in to the mold/die setup for a sheet trimmed from a used automobile hood panel. The trimmed sheet shown outlined from the engine hood<br /></span><br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg86p9yXNEHjnEPAANQa4xR6gppZloVH1YxXqqq3d5_CZVEb3aR42eTBk8EIIUW6lphs9ZiR9WgGiq8vRo7lo9HJxt9S3lGlslIE91Pbdy8fx494bAHfIDcm58Oy6lmDhsG-wp1f_dvv50/s1600/reformed+parts.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="305" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg86p9yXNEHjnEPAANQa4xR6gppZloVH1YxXqqq3d5_CZVEb3aR42eTBk8EIIUW6lphs9ZiR9WgGiq8vRo7lo9HJxt9S3lGlslIE91Pbdy8fx494bAHfIDcm58Oy6lmDhsG-wp1f_dvv50/s320/reformed+parts.jpg" width="320" /></a></span></div>
<span style="font-size: small;">
<br />is formed using a process called “hydroforming“ (in which the metal sheet is deformed against a form using hydraulic pressure – this avoid the problem of the nonuniform shape and flatness of the original trimmed sheet that would prevent normal closed die forming). The sheet is deformed into a mold with the desired finished shape. The reference to sheet feeder control refers to a method to control the flow of material into the mold during forming. In one case the metal is annealed or softened to remove the work hardening from the prior manufacturing operation. But, as seen in the figure, the resulting shape is impressive – even if some of the original paint is still in place!<br /><br />For the reuse of the PC side panels, Tekkaya experimented with a process called incremental sheet metal forming to create another workpiece for another product.<br /><br />Consider the potential if the designers of the parts planned a bit to allow easier reuse of panel portions of the metal parts – thus enhancing the possibility of direct reforming for reuse. <br /><br />There is still some scrap as evidenced by the trimmed pieces in the figure. But, compared to crushing, melting, recasting, rolling and re-forming the sheets, as usually done with recycled automotive metals, this is a tremendous improvement in “resource productivity.“<br /><br />This is just one example. But, it demonstrates the role process innovation can play in improving manufacturing and promoting efficient and effective resource utilization. Consider other "large flat sheets" used in products - sides of washers and dryers, refrigerator housings, etc. These area ready for re-use.</span>David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-87905997121529889182013-08-07T09:54:00.000-07:002013-08-15T20:32:33.945-07:00Resource Sustainability and Embedded Costs will Define Future Manufacturing Competitiveness <style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Mangal;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:8192 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Mangal;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-bidi-language:HI;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Mangal;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-bidi-language:HI;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;
mso-header-margin:.5in;
mso-footer-margin:.5in;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
</style>
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">Interview with
Sustainability Outlook Magazine - India</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Mangal;
panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;
mso-font-charset:1;
mso-generic-font-family:roman;
mso-font-format:other;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:8192 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;
mso-font-charset:0;
mso-generic-font-family:auto;
mso-font-pitch:variable;
mso-font-signature:-520092929 1073786111 9 0 415 0;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{mso-style-unhide:no;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
margin-top:0in;
margin-right:0in;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Mangal;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-bidi-language:HI;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
mso-themecolor:hyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
mso-themecolor:followedhyperlink;
text-decoration:underline;
text-underline:single;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
mso-default-props:yes;
font-size:11.0pt;
mso-ansi-font-size:11.0pt;
mso-bidi-font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:Mangal;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;
mso-bidi-language:HI;}
.MsoPapDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
margin-bottom:10.0pt;
line-height:115%;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;
mso-header-margin:35.4pt;
mso-footer-margin:35.4pt;
mso-paper-source:0;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
</style>
</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><i><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">This is the
text of an interview with an Indian on-line magazine “<a href="http://www.sustainabilityoutlook.in/content/page/sustainability-outlook-current-issue">Sustainability Outlook”</a>.
I was interviewed by them in June this year as part of a focus on “Sustainability
as a Key Driver for Innovation” (a theory I wholeheartedly subscribe to!) and
the article just appeared in their on-line issue. The conversation centered on
ways in which sustainability can drive innovation in the Indian manufacturing
sector but the topics are in general much broader and may be of interest. The
magazine covers a broad range of environmental and sustainability issues in
India and the world. The article is reprinted here with their permission.</span></i></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">How would you define what Green Manufacturing is?</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Green manufacturing is about
implementing any kind of substitution in the manufacturing process which leads
to a reduction in energy consumption, resource consumption, waste by-products,
and water usage. Any and every step that makes the production of a product,
component or part of a system more sustainable can be termed as Green
Manufacturing. Sustainability as a phrase is a discrete term – one is either
sustainable or not. However, the problem in manufacturing is that it is
difficult to accurately quantify all steps in the process and thus be able to
assess with precision whether the processes are truly sustainable or not. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b><span style="line-height: 115%;">Where do you think lies the
link between innovation and green manufacturing?</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I believe that Sustainability is a great
driver for innovation. If you look at the big transitions that have happened in
the last 100 years or more, you will notice that they have always been promoted
by the need to get more value out of a process or reduce cost or inefficiency.
Henry Ford epitomized this when he pushed the transition from a craft
production to an automated production. People like these took the inefficiency
out of random organization and made the whole process more organized. As a
result productivity went up, cost went down and controlling ability elevated
further.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I think sustainability presents
the same kind of opportunity now. People are inherently, as part of good
business practices, trying to reduce the cost of ownership of manufacturing
machinery, trying to increase productivity, maintain high quality and reduce
variability. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Sustainability gives us the
opportunity to reflect on things which might not have been considered in the
past. Issues like the cost of energy, which suddenly is now obvious to
everybody but which some years ago no one paid attention to; the cost of water,
the treatment of it and the condition in which it can be released, the cost of
materials etc. are things which are slowly coming into the mainstream dialogue
and emerging as key parameters with which processes’ efficiency can be judged.
In addition, we now need to factor in social variabilities which are not
necessarily technical in nature but can lead to disruption of entire supply
chain.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>This new way of thinking<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>is propelling efforts towards an enhanced
manufacturing approach which factors in all of these issues and identifies
areas which need and could be improved – leading to not only a reduction in
adverse environmental impacts but also an enhancement in the financial
bottom-line of the firm; as also an efficient and cost-effective process. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b><span style="line-height: 115%;">Manufacturing
has gone through its own evolutionary process – from craft production to mass
production and now to mass customization. To what end do you think there is going
to be a fresh wave of manufacturing which will take into account
sustainability?</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">I absolutely think that the
time will come, if it hasn’t already, to take into account resource
sustainability and “embedded costs”. Of late there have been a lot of studies
trying to understand why companies embody sustainable business plans. The first
set of drivers that one notices includes reputation, competitiveness, product
awareness and solid business strategies because people tend to like companies
that at least attempt to be more sustainable. The next level tends to be about
cost related issues. Going back to Henry Ford, he was no environmentalist but
he was smart enough to realize that if one bought some material and didn’t
utilize it to its optimum use and threw some part of it away, one is
essentially throwing something that one has already paid for. Equally
importantly, one is also essentially paying someone to dispose-off that waste. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Up until recently accounting
systems and performance measurement systems weren’t in place to allow
manufacturing to track those costs separately. For instance, of late there has
been a huge push in the metal cutting industry to reduce the usage of coolants
because as it turns out, analysis showed that the costs of cutting fluids, the
handling of it and its disposal, amounted to a huge hidden cost and was a
burden to the production process. Before the study, however, nobody had
actually known what the cumulative peripheral costs were and couldn’t extract a
specific cost.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Now I think you can actually
make good arguments as to what the total benefits are: including cost benefits,
business benefits while keeping in mind things like regulatory issues. If you
use less of some material that is highly regulated, then you end up paying less
to dispose it, pay less to protect your employees while they work with it, pay
less to handle it and store it in your facility. It’s like light weighting in
automotive industry – the more you reduce the weight of the vehicle but keep
the same strength, the better the fuel economy gets. It’s kind of like
materials and resourcing in factories – the more you reduce, the more agile you
become. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b><span style="line-height: 115%;">To
what extent do you think manufacturing units are aware of the energy footprint
of their products? Do you think that green manufacturing as a concept has been
mainstreamed enough in commercial manufacturing, in India particularly?</span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">I think the increasing cost of
electricity and other resources has forced people to understand and to pay
attention to how they use resources. People are increasingly trying to
understand how much energy they are using, how much of it is being used
productively and how much of it is being wasted through sheer negligence. So
increasing cost of electricity is one of the reasons why more people have
started thinking on these lines. The next is water – the cost and</span><span style="line-height: 115%;"> availability scenario has induced
people to start paying attention. The ones that are a little bit trickier
include cost of packaging, the cost of other resources used in the facility
that might not be associated directly with the process, etc. But the rapidly
changing energy picture has been a huge eye-opener.</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><b><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">Manufacturing in India has very significantly come down in
the past</span></b><b><span style="line-height: 115%;"> <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white;">few years. What in your opinion could provide a fillip
to the</span> <span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white;">manufacturing sector?</span></span></b></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">India
has a huge consumer base and a tremendous market and an exceptionally
entrepreneurial society which essentially means that efforts can be converted
into products quite nicely. There is a culture of education and technology
which is quite strong. Some countries have lots of energy, others have a lot of
natural resources; I think to India’s benefit there is a strong education,
information science culture and capability – as time goes on, this is going to
make processes more efficient and will definitely catalyze waste reduction
efforts<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>as also optimal use of resource
or energy. It is the infrastructure that needs to be in place to ensure that
the variability of these things can be guaranteed. My sense is that the
potential of having the right set of tools for the next big industrial
revolution is probably higher in India – rather than say China or even Europe.
If you look at Central Europe, they have a very strong manufacturing
infrastructure but do not quite have the same affinity for information
processing and IT that exists in India. Also there is a huge market in India,
which is hard to come by anywhere else. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br />
<b>What do you see as the major challenge to environmentally friendly
manufacturing? Is it to do with less diffused and available technology or does
economic feasibility play a role in this?</b></span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">The two are
probably tied together and this applies everywhere. If you are trying to grow
your business, you will require additional resources and will need more energy,
water, materials, access to transportation and access to these can be variable
and inconsistent. What is needed is the sort of lean technologies which help to
make processes more scalable in the presence of variable demand. The Japanese
pioneered the Toyota principle which essentially allows the production system
to accommodate huge variability in demand or huge variability in exchange rate
between the yen and the euro. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">My sense is
that with respect to environmental issues or green technology, companies will
benefit by having another degree of responsiveness to changes in availability
or the lack of it in resources, supply chain disruptions etc. The companies
which figure this out will become more competitive because if there are
disruptions or reductions or unavailability of resources, then these are the
companies which will be prepared for such challenges. </span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">***</span></span></div>
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;">
</span><br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: small;"><span style="background: none repeat scroll 0% 0% white; line-height: 115%;">The next blog
posting will focus on the environmental pros and cons of additive
manufacturing! And make sure to check out the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/GreenManufacturingBerkeley">Green Manufacturing Facebook</a> page for interesting tidbits
on green manufacturing in the news. And, of course, hit the "like" button!</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: small;">And - save the date - August 29th. LMAS researchers present as part of a webinar sponsored by <a href="http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/1021695/e243c0ddde/1501597899/1a97068a39/">Sustainable Minds</a> on Creating Knowledge Workers for the Greener Product Marketplace Part 6: Showcasing Sustainable Manufacturing at UCB. Register for this free webinar at the Sustainable Minds link above.</span></div>
David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-19059132491446250642013-07-12T22:00:00.000-07:002013-08-07T09:55:13.049-07:00The effective utilization of resources<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">How about resource productivity?<br /><br />As part of thinking about mechanisms, and metrics, for driving green manufacturing, it came to mind that there is always a lot of talk, specially in the US, about the tremendous advances in labor productivity that have occurred over the last several decades. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (or <a href="http://www.bls.gov/lpc/">BLS</a>) is the official keeper and generator of this statistic about the performance of the US economy.<br /><br />The BLS website defines labor productivity as the relationship of "output to the labor hours used in the production of that output." It measures these in terms of two productivity metrics - major sector and industry productivity. BLS states that "The Major Sector Productivity program publishes quarterly and annual measures of output per hour and unit labor costs for the U.S. business, nonfarm business, and manufacturing sectors. These are the productivity statistics most often cited by the national media. The Industry Productivity program publishes annual measures of output per hour and unit labor costs for U.S. industries."<br /><br />The kind of "news" this generates is typical of the following, from the BLS website, reported on June 5, 2013. "Productivity increased 0.5 percent in the nonfarm business sector in the first quarter of 2013; unit labor costs decreased 4.3 percent (seasonally adjusted annual rates). In manufacturing, productivity increased 3.5 percent and unit labor costs decreased 10.0 percent."<br /><br />This means that, thanks to a number of improvements in industry, manufacturers managed to squeeze out 3.5 percent more output per unit of labor input. This could be due to work organization, automation, simplified production, incentives, etc. This is generally considered to be "good news." <br /><br />In fact, the increase of productivity in the US labor market is a driver for business competitiveness. Higher productivity maintains a strong labor-cost advantage (at present, US productivity is 3x Mexico, for example) and has been growing at about 2.5% each year. <br /><br />So, what does all this have to do with green and sustainable manufacturing!?<br /><br />Why not measure and track resource productivity too?<br /><br />Seems obvious when you think about it. Why not consider resource productivity along with labor productivity as a measure of competitiveness for manufacturing (or any industrial sector for that matter)?<br /><br />Gary Pisano and Willy Shih in their book "<i>Producing Prosperity – Why America Needs a Manufacturing Renaissance</i>," Harvard Business Review Press, Boston, 2012, discuss productivity as a measure of innovation in manufacturing. They refer to something called "Total Factor Productivity" which combines all inputs – labor, capital, and others – to create a measure of overall efficiency for an economy. This is driven by innovation in products and processes and makes a company, country, region attractive to productive activities. (Note: this is a good read if you are thinking about broader manufacturing issues and not "just" green manufacturing!)<br /><br />So, how does this fit in?<br /><br />Recall the IPAT impact equation? Its been discussed a number of times in this blog (most recently back in <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2013/05/green-and-frugal-part-ii.html">May</a>) and it proposes a simple methodology for assessing the impact of technology (and manufacturing of products) based on the population, a measure of affluence or standard of living (here the GDP/capita - an imperfect but useful metric) and the impact per unit of value created in manufacturing (impact/unit GDP). <br /><br />You may remember that I made some note that the only thing manufacturing engineers can affect in this equation to move towards reducing impact is the impact/unit GDP - that is, the impact (in terms of consumption or generation of damage) of the products we create. If we can offer the same or greater value with reduced impact we are on the right path.<br /><br />So, sounds a lot like productivity doesn't it?!<br /><br />The problem is, we've got to get moving! <br /><br />At present our impacts are too large. According to Dr. Margot Hutchins, the Associate Director of the Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainabiity (LMAS) at UC-Berkeley, we are utilizing 1.5 times the capacity of the planet in terms of resource consumption with an impact of emissions of CO2 and pollutants, depletion of resources, solid waste, etc. The usual problems.<br /><br />Looking to the future she predicts that population (the P in IPAT) will will increase by ~40-30% by 2050. Affluence, A in IPAT, is also growing quickly in many nations – ~3-5x increase by 2050. And this is to be expected. Everyone wants a better standard of living. The result is that we may need to increase our efficiency (that is, reduce the T) by a factor of nearly 10!!! Meaning, we've got to reduce impact of our products while maintaining their value - or growing it - in the eyes of the consumer.<br /><br />Tall order. So, how would resource productivity come into this? </span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">First of all, how should we define this? Following on the definition of labor productivity, resource productivity would be the amount of output (value) created per unit of resource expended (or unit of impact).<br /><br />How might we measure this? These units of resource (or impact) could be employed -<br /> - Global warming gases emission (CO2, methane CH4, N2O, CFC’s) <br /> - Yield or % Recyclability<br /> - % Reuse of materials or remanufacturing<br /> - Pollution (air, water, land)<br /><br />and these could be per capita, per GDP, per area/nation, and so on.<br /><br />As with higher labor productivity which bolsters a nation's labor-cost advantage, higher resource productivity maintains a strong resource-cost advantage.<br /><br />More value, lower impact - sounds like something we should look into.<br /><br />It is sort of like the term used in the aerospace industry - the “buy to fly ratio.” This term came up in this blog back in July of 2010 as part of a discussion on "<a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2010/07/degrees-of-perfection.html">Degrees of Perfection</a>". It is, in a nutshell, the amount of material, for example, that ends up flying on the aircraft normalized by the amount that was purchased and processed at the start of the production line. It is often, for some aerospace components, a very low number.<br /><br />But we also see this in other products. You may recall a conversation on this back in June of 2011 under the topic of "<a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2011/06/less-can-be-more-part-2.html">Less can be more</a>"! based on some research by Professor Julian Allwood at Cambridge University on the yield of material in processing to create some common products - like beverage cans, automotive panels, etc. But Professor Allwood is more careful in his counting. He doesn't just track yield gate to gate in part of the production but all the way from the melt on creation to the finished product. In the case of both steel and aluminum the "cumulative yield" (meaning the amount of material from the raw stock - in this case liquid metal in the ladle after it was refined - to the finished product) was as low as 40-50% in some cases and, for some aerospace components fabricated of aluminum, in the low 'teens.<br /><br />And the "cumulative impact" of that material when it finally got into a product necessarily included the energy that processed the "wasted" material along the path to production. Just because you recycle material that is left on the shop floor doesn't mean you "hit the reset button" on imbedded energy, or its environmental impact, in the product.<br /><br />This did not mean that the manufacturers were being necessarily wasteful - just that the process technology was not able to extract more finished product out of the material without large amounts of waste.<br /><br />This is not usually accounted for (except in the price of the component which reflects the material and processing supply chain). But the associated impacts for sure aren't accounted for.<br /><br />What if we were measuring, along with labor productivity, the resource productivity? Would this drive us to innovate in the process technology to improve the "buy to fly ratio"? It would reduce the impact in proportion to the increase in yield of material processed - less waste means, in addition to less cost, less impact. Each kg of wasted material has embedded energy, water, and other resources in it.<br /><br />Let's start talking about resource productivity when we speak of manufacturing. And this can be a strong driver for manufacturing innovation as well.<br /><br />In the next postings we'll address some of the follow-on innovation that could improve our resource productivity and, in the process, explore some ideas on tracking resource productivity.</span></span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="font-family: Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">And, a reminder about the <a href="https://www.facebook.com/GreenManufacturingBerkeley">Green Manufacturing Facebook</a> page - more frequent comments and items on green and sustainable manufacturing and the issues that affect it. </span></span>David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-50514058121130283672013-06-06T12:41:00.002-07:002013-06-07T17:23:36.187-07:00Cheap Labor, out of Fashion?: New Models for Assessing Supplying Decisions after the Bangladesh Factory Collapse<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:DocumentProperties>
<o:Revision>0</o:Revision>
<o:TotalTime>0</o:TotalTime>
<o:Pages>1</o:Pages>
<o:Words>2103</o:Words>
<o:Characters>11988</o:Characters>
<o:Company>UC Berkeley</o:Company>
<o:Lines>99</o:Lines>
<o:Paragraphs>28</o:Paragraphs>
<o:CharactersWithSpaces>14063</o:CharactersWithSpaces>
<o:Version>14.0</o:Version>
</o:DocumentProperties>
<o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
<o:AllowPNG/>
</o:OfficeDocumentSettings>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:WordDocument>
<w:View>Normal</w:View>
<w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom>
<w:TrackMoves/>
<w:TrackFormatting/>
<w:PunctuationKerning/>
<w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/>
<w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>
<w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent>
<w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>
<w:DoNotPromoteQF/>
<w:LidThemeOther>EN-US</w:LidThemeOther>
<w:LidThemeAsian>JA</w:LidThemeAsian>
<w:LidThemeComplexScript>X-NONE</w:LidThemeComplexScript>
<w:Compatibility>
<w:BreakWrappedTables/>
<w:SnapToGridInCell/>
<w:WrapTextWithPunct/>
<w:UseAsianBreakRules/>
<w:DontGrowAutofit/>
<w:SplitPgBreakAndParaMark/>
<w:EnableOpenTypeKerning/>
<w:DontFlipMirrorIndents/>
<w:OverrideTableStyleHps/>
</w:Compatibility>
<m:mathPr>
<m:mathFont m:val="Cambria Math"/>
<m:brkBin m:val="before"/>
<m:brkBinSub m:val="--"/>
<m:smallFrac m:val="off"/>
<m:dispDef/>
<m:lMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:rMargin m:val="0"/>
<m:defJc m:val="centerGroup"/>
<m:wrapIndent m:val="1440"/>
<m:intLim m:val="subSup"/>
<m:naryLim m:val="undOvr"/>
</m:mathPr></w:WordDocument>
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" DefUnhideWhenUsed="true"
DefSemiHidden="true" DefQFormat="false" DefPriority="99"
LatentStyleCount="276">
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Normal"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="heading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="9" QFormat="true" Name="heading 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 7"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 8"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" Name="toc 9"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="35" QFormat="true" Name="caption"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" Name="Default Paragraph Font"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="11" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtitle"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="0" Name="Body Text 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="22" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Strong"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="20" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="59" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Table Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Placeholder Text"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="1" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="No Spacing"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Revision"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="34" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="List Paragraph"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="29" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="30" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Quote"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 1"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 2"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 3"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 4"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 5"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="60" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="61" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="62" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Light Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="63" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="64" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Shading 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="65" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="66" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium List 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="67" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 1 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="68" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 2 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="69" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Medium Grid 3 Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="70" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Dark List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="71" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Shading Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="72" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful List Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="73" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" Name="Colorful Grid Accent 6"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="19" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="21" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Emphasis"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="31" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Subtle Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="32" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Intense Reference"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="33" SemiHidden="false"
UnhideWhenUsed="false" QFormat="true" Name="Book Title"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="37" Name="Bibliography"/>
<w:LsdException Locked="false" Priority="39" QFormat="true" Name="TOC Heading"/>
</w:LatentStyles>
</xml><![endif]-->
<!--[if gte mso 10]>
<style>
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
</style>
<![endif]-->
<!--StartFragment-->
<br />
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Social Aspects of Green and Sustainable Manufacturing</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">From time to time this blog will include appropriate contributions from others. This posting is one of those and comes from a PhD researcher in the Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability, Ms. Rachel Simon.</span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">The Rana Plaza factory collapse
in Bangladesh, with a final death toll of 1,127 workers, officially ranks as
one of the worst manufacturing disasters of all time. The tragedy exhibits a
new reality for producers with supply chains that are global and complex: a
diversity of suppliers along the value chain may protect producers from the
vulnerabilities of disruptions, but it can also expose them to additional
risks—such as hidden costs and a damaged reputation—resulting from using even a
single supplier with any bad environmental or social practices. In light of
these developments, what will be needed for companies to consider and mitigate
these risks? <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">You may recall from earlier
articles about <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2011/04/considering-energy-of-labor-part-1or.html">labor</a> and the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-s-word-part-i.html">social impacts of sustainability</a> we have discussed here the “triple bottom line.” For those that did not read these
postings, the “triple bottom line” term originated in 1994 with John Elkington
(he called it the 3-P’s: profit, people and planet) with the “people” part
indicating “a measure in some shape or form of how socially responsible an
organization has been throughout its operations.” What remains debated is what
the social responsibility measurements of a company should be, and how they can
be accurately assessed. While we, at our lab, have been working on identifying
the best social metrics for manufacturing, supply chain management, and risk
aversion, it is often difficult to pinpoint the perfect social metrics because,
they are, in general, an indirect and imperfect measurement of a conceptual
ideal.<b><o:p></o:p></b></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Similar to the environmental
issues that result from production, there are often social costs to workers and
surrounding communities, the burdens of which are borne by people beyond the
scope of production and consumption (you may also recall our reference in the
blog to Elizabeth Kolbert’s <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2012/12/the-s-word-part-v.html">analogy on externalities</a> about global warming being like
a drunk man that the public must pay for in the cost of a police escort home or
a visit to the emergency room). For instance, while companies may contribute to
the costs of the rescue and relief efforts at Rana Plaza, their contributions
will not likely exceed the long term total costs to survivors, the families of
workers, and the Bangladeshi public. Also, just as with environmental issues,
it is a short-sighted perspective that often leads to business decisions that
create entrenched social issues. With sourcing garments from Bangladesh,
companies have been mostly concerned with the cost of sourcing per unit
produced. However, when everything is taken into account, companies may end up
spending more to compensate for these disasters, repair their damaged
reputation, find and build relationships with new suppliers, or improve the
existing conditions in Bangladesh in order to continue doing business there.
Social metrics are precisely what are necessary to prevent producers from being
associated with, or contributing to, the conditions that led to the tragedy in
Bangladesh repeating in the future. Regardless of which party is ultimately
responsible, these disasters in the production chain put brands at risk, and
the issues that created them need to be handled to achieve sustainability. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">One of the benefits to a
company that outsources components is that they do not have to invest their own
resources into managing the conditions under which they are produced. Companies
have challenged the idea that they hold a large part of the responsibility to
enforce the working conditions of their suppliers. However, in Bangladesh,
brand owners appear to be past the point where they can debate on the
principles of what should be. Instead, they have been faced with strong public
sentiment about their role in incidents such as the Rana Plaza collapse, and
the Tazreen factory fire that preceded it which killed 112 workers last
November. In both of these catastrophes, labor groups and the media have been
quick to identify which <a href="http://www.blogger.com/Retailers%20Split%20on%20Contrition%20After%20Collapse%20of%20Factories.%20http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/asia/retailers-split-on-bangladesh-factory-collapse.html">fashion labels</a> have been found in the rubble of the
fallen factories.
In the wake of Rana Plaza, the <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-bangladesh-garment-workers-20130516,0,1203787.story">Los Angeles Times</a>,
the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/world/asia/bangladeshs-cabinet-approves-changes-to-labor-laws.html?ref=global">New York Times</a>,
the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324216004578483381921421300.html">Wall Street Journal</a>,
and the <a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-05-15/business/39281672_1_bangladesh-retailers-labor-groups">Washington Post</a>,
have all featured articles about which retailers have signed a proposed legally
binding agreement on worker safety and building regulations for Bangladesh.
Sumi Abedin, a survivor of the Tazreen factory fire, who jumped three
stories—not to save her life, but to save her body in hopes that her family
could identify her remains—<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/04/in-the-wake-of-a-deadly-fire-garment-workers-push-for-stronger-protections/275243/">tours the United States</a>, advocating companies and
consumers to improve the working conditions for garment workers like her in
Bangladesh.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Now companies that do not wish
to further tarnish their brands are faced with the decision to continue to
source from Bangladesh, and help improve the working conditions there, or sever
their ties with a location that has proven to be risky. Unfortunately, neither
option can be implemented immediately, or without costs. For manufacturers
wishing to leave Bangladesh, the limitations on the existing production capacity
elsewhere makes it impossible to do so anytime in the near future. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/business/global/after-bangladesh-seeking-new-sources.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&smid=tw-share&">KeithBradsher </a>reports in the New York Times that only a few countries in the
world—China, Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia; and potentially, Cambodia and
Pakistan—have developed the production systems necessary to turn out the
quality and volume which retailers need within the timeframe in which they want
it.
He further notes that this production capacity in alternative Southeast Asian
factories is already being fully utilized. In fact, a <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/16/business/global/after-bangladesh-seeking-new-sources.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&smid=tw-share&">leading garment sourcingcompany</a> estimates that only 10 to 20 percent of Bangladesh’s current output, or
$2 billion to $4 billion worth of goods per year, could be shifted in the next
nine months to other countries.
So, even for companies wishing to move out of Bangladesh, the feasibility to do
so is questionable. In the meantime, companies will likely have to develop a
strategy for their continued sourcing from Bangladeshi factories.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Additionally, a move out of
Bangladesh will be accompanied by increased costs. Today, Bangladesh is the
cheapest place in the world to manufacture clothing on a large scale. For
instance, the average <a href="http://blogs.marketwatch.com/behindthestorefront/2013/05/16/cambodia-factory-accident-is-latest-to-expose-perils-of-low-cost-apparel/">Bangladeshi garment factory</a> worker earns $37 a month,
compared to $120 in Cambodia’s Phnom Penh, $145 in Vietnam’s Ho Chi Minh City;
$190 and $300 in Indonesia’s Semarang and Jakarta and $500 in China’s Guangzhou.
Historically, brands turned to Bangladesh for cheaper production when prices in
China began to increase. As demand for the cheap Bangladeshi labor grew, the
existing garment industry was not able to support it. Low wages, paired with an
expiration of the quotas governing the amount of garments that U.S. companies
could import,
drove rapid development in Bangladesh to serve unmet demand. Elizabeth Cline, a
journalist and author of <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/transcript/transcript.php?storyId=180557959">Overdressed: TheShockingly High Cost of Cheap Fashion,</a> notes that the approximately 4,000
factories in Bangladesh could not keep up with the pressure of trying to
compete with the 40,000 garment factories in China.
According to Kapner, Mukherji, and Banjo of the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324766604578458802423873488.html">Wall Street Journal</a>, labor groups
in Bangladesh say that factory owners illegally converted hundreds of
residential and other buildings into makeshift garment factories.
They also cite monitors who claim that factory owners would often build
additional floors on to existing factories without concern for fire or other
building codes. From 2005 to 2012, the number of garment factories increased
30% to 5,400 factories, according to the <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324766604578458802423873488.html">Bangladesh manufacturers' association</a>.
<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Not only did cutting corners
allow factory owners to keep pace with the expanding demand, but it also
allowed them to keep the prices low. The tragedies that have recently occurred
in Bangladesh happened in factories where owners neglected to provide—and pay
the overhead associated with—appropriate building construction and maintenance
according to codes: adequate lighting, ventilation, and emergency exits, and
the necessary oversight to enforce safety standards. Additionally, it became
difficult for brand owners to determine precisely in what factory, and under
which conditions, their garments were being made, as a network of
sub-contractors grew to serve primary factories that were at capacity. <o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Certainly, fixing these long
standing issues of negligence in the Bangladeshi garment industry will require
a capital investment. However, the question that should be asked is: will the
capital that is required to fix the existing issues in Bangladesh cost more or
less over the long term than the higher prices of production in other
locations. Also, and more broadly, is there a cost level below which ensuring a
minimum level of working conditions become untenable?<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">While relocating can alleviate
some of the issues associated with manufacturing in Bangladesh, it does not
guarantee that the problems occurring there will not be duplicated elsewhere.
Could new demand in a different country drive rapid expansion at the cost of
building safety? Will factory owners elsewhere compromise standards to improve
their profit margins? With demand for production exceeding supply, will unsafe
factories be sub-contracted against the wishes of manufacturers? Investing in
Bangladesh will likely improve the status quo, while it is uncertain if moving
elsewhere will be trading in one set of problems for another.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">What is clear is that the
existing model of developing and monitoring corporate codes of conduct for
suppliers has not worked in Bangladesh. Foxvog and Gearhart of the
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2013/05/02/when-does-corporate-responsibility-mean-abandoning-ship/disneys-decision-to-pull-out-of-bangladesh-is-a-mistake">International Labor Rights Forum </a>criticize corporate supply chain monitoring
systems for placing additional requirements on factories without providing them
the financial means necessary to meet them.
They also claim that these systems encourage factories to keep safety risks secret,
out of fear that the companies will stop doing business with them, if they were
to find out. While these sentiments clearly reflect the perspectives of labor,
their accuracy does not hold less true.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">Extensive research has been
conducted proving that the environment in which laborers work affects their
productivity. Even without reference to such studies, it is easy to suppose
that in Bangladesh, where the work force is already trained and incredibly
effective, productivity may improve if factory employees had adequate lighting
and a consistent power supply, and did not work while in fear of a fire or a
building collapsing. For manufacturers, improved working conditions would also
reduce the uncertainty and risks of disruptions resulting from a similar disaster,
and the unrest that would likely follow it, such as was seen with the worker
protest that following the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/27/world/asia/garment-workers-stage-protest-in-bangladesh-after-deadly-fire.html?_r=0">Tazreen factory fires</a>.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">Multiple polls and studies have
indicated that consumers have a desire to buy ethical clothing, and may even be
willing to spend more on garments that are made with good labor standards (see, for example, a. Hiscox,
M. J., and Smyth, N. F. (2006). Is There Consumer Demand for Improved Labor
Standards? Evidence from Field Experiments in Social Labeling. Department of
Government, Harvard University; b. </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">Elliott, K. A., and Freeman, R. (2001). White hats or Don Quixotes? Human rights vigilantes in the
global economy (No. w8102), National Bureau of Economic Research.; and </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">Kimeldorf, H., Meyer, R.,
Prasad, M., & Robinson, I. (2006), Consumers with a conscience: will they
pay more? <i>Contexts</i>, 5(1), 24-29). </span></span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;"><br /></span>
</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><span style="line-height: 115%;">However, while this sentiment has been
expressed for over 20 years, growth in the <a href="http://www.marketwatch.com/story/why-shoppers-dont-care-about-bangladesh-2013-05-14">ethical fashion market</a> in recent
years has been small - so called <a href="http://www.goodwithmoney.co.uk/ethical-consumerism-report-2010">ethical consumerism</a> and ethical clothing (see, </span><span style="line-height: 115%;">Mintel, 2009. Ethical
Clothing –UK-2009. Mintel International Group Limited).</span></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;">For garment manufactures
currently sourcing from Bangladesh, moving past the Rana Plaza collapse will be
a challenge, regardless of what steps they take. However, perhaps this point
also serves as an opportunity to fill a niche that currently isn’t being
served, for those with the foresight to pursue it.<o:p></o:p></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 115%;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">Comments and inquiries about this posting will be referred directly to Ms. Simon for her response. </span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;"><br /></span></div>
<div class="MsoNormal" style="text-align: justify;">
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; line-height: 18px;">More on the social aspects of sustainability next time.</span></div>
<!--EndFragment-->David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-53891446842228194672013-05-09T13:25:00.001-07:002013-06-07T17:22:35.512-07:00Green and Frugal, Part II<br />
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Broadly frugal</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 12px;">In the last post (an embarrassing long time ago!) the discussion centered on "frugal engineering" or, as it is sometimes referred to as "frugal innovation." It was noted that frugal engineering usually refers to </span>reducing the complexity and cost of some good and the production of it so that, for example, it might be more accessible in developing economies. It can also include simpler (or fewer bells and whistles) products that are devoid of non-essential features. One market for this is the so-called developing economies where there is an emphasis on simple basic performance and durability and less on glitz. The theory is that selling such products, made cheaply (but well!) would couple volume with thin profit margins to address the growing markets in these countries for basic goods and services - cars, cell phones, appliances. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px;">
The expectation is that result frugal engineering will not create products (or processes) with inferior quality. Hence production must be similarly efficient and, it would be assumed employ "frugal use of resources" as well.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<span style="font-size: 13px;">An article in mid 2010 on "<a href="http://www.strategy-business.com/article/10201?gko=24674">The importance of Frugal Engineering</a>"</span> published by Booz and Company reviewed some of the fundamentals of this new way of designing and producing products for the "bottom of the pyramid." These include elements we should already be doing - but focused laser sharp on a different segment of the consumer market: understanding the consumer, bottom up innovation, organizational agility including cross functional teams, nontraditional supply chain and top down support.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
They give several great examples in the article and we'll summarize on here - that of the Nokia 1100 cell phone. With the first glimmer of economic prosperity in pretty much any country people buy a cell phone. Not a fancy one. A functional one. One that might work in agricultural conditions - dusty and dirty. One for field workers in humid environments. The describes the development of a phone for such circumstances. Nokia engineers noticed that the humidity of the working environment made the phones slippery and hard to hold on to or dial. The result was a phone with a nonslip coating on the keypad and sides. To resist the damage from dust and other contaminants in some of the factory environs the handset was designed to minimize dust infusion. The phones are also very basic - send/receive calls and texts, monochrome screens, fewer features so power draw is lower and they can last longer between charges. The Nokia engineers added only one feature that might be an "extra" - a small, energy efficient flashlight that is a big hit in areas with frequent blackouts or poor lighting - meaning pretty much most of the markets this phone was designed for. It sells (in 2010 at least) for $15-20 and is apparently a best seller.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
So, what can we learn from this for a broader market - one that is already enjoying the fruits of be "further up the development curve"? If you "google" the term frugal you get quite a screen full. The usual implication is getting more but spending less. Well, that works! It also starts with clothing - buy second hand, buy fewer, buy better quality (things that last), chose versatile over stylish (ok…let's see how that works!), repair/modify as needed, make your own. You can find more on this line at a number of websites - like <a href="http://www.thefrugalgirl.com/">frugal girl.</a> </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Importantly, this does not mean buy cheap clothes if you want to include sustainability in your wardrobe. The trend to "throwaway fashion" based on cheap, rapidly changing styles made with inexpensive materials and low labor is anathema to sustainability. One only need to reflect on the recent tragedy in Bangladesh to drive that point home.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
But, remember the first paragraph above and the discussion in the last posting - frugal does not mean low quality or, importantly, lower value (quality for the price).</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
That last one, quality for the price, is the one to watch. Recall our discussion in the past on the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-s-word-part-i.html">IPAT equation</a> for estimating impact of technology? The acronym is defined as IPAT: I = P x A x T or Impact = Population x Affluence x Technology. The key term green manufactures and engineers need to keep in focus is "Impact/GDP" - that is, the environmental and social results or impact associated with the value of the product or technology. That's the one we can influence. Being able to increase the value of the product or technology while at the same time reducing the impact from using the product is green. If this is done sufficiently over a wide enough range of products (or manufacturing processes) we can become sustainable.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
This should apply across all economic domains and the elements of frugal outlined in the Booz paper should equally apply. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Understand the customer - let's assume the customer is interested in being truly green (and on the road to sustainable); certainly in the San Francisco Bay area this is appealing to the "developed" crowd. But we'll need to make sure we can address the customer needs straight off but include enough style to make the product acceptable. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Bottom up innovation - rethink all aspects of the product or process; specially with efficiency of resource use, and recovery, in mind. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Organizational ability - this is more than beating up the supplier for lower cost. This implies less obvious tradeoffs between similarly capable but less impactful solutions; Often suppliers can or will work with the designer to insure the specifications are met but not just by using something "off the shelf" or, perhaps, off a different shelf. An interesting article on frugal engineering (albeit in a slightly different context) in supply chains was in the <a href="http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/cb8074b0-80ef-11e0-8351-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2SpUWwDcJ">Financial Times </a>in May, 2011.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Top-down support - this is the Kennedy Moon Landing mission declaration - but for frugal engineered and manufactured products; "We will make a X for $Y." That might mean not adopting the same product platform that serves another market demographic. Or developing one that extends across a broader range of market.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
In the Booz article one of the bolded text box statements is "In mature industries, companies are optimized for their main customers. For emerging markets, a different approach is required." True. But, let's consider the "sustainable-minded consumer" (including the manufacturing engineer or factory manager) as an "emerging market" too. How would we design and build our products for that growing market? As we are able to deliver products with equivalent capability/functionality/value but with lower impact those consumers leaning in this direction will go for it. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Companies are already on board. There are already so many examples on the web and in the media about companies being more productive and profitable using fewer resources, less energy and water and, more and more, with lower social impact throughout the supply chain. This is the solution to greenwashing - deliver real measurable green value in a product that meets the consumer's needs - whether in a field in India or a start up in San Francisco. How about we focus "laser sharp" on that?</div>
David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-67375363212506669172013-03-26T15:34:00.000-07:002013-04-06T18:51:19.867-07:00Green and Frugal, Part I<br />
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Frugal Innovation and Green</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
The last posting centered on innovation and sustainability - or creating "new" value - and the role of green innovation in product design and manufacturing. Recently I've been reading about, and hearing about, "frugal engineering." Or, it is sometimes referred to as "frugal innovation." As an engineer I'm happy to have the terms innovation and engineering used interchangeably!</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 12px;">Frugal engineering usually refers to </span>reducing the complexity and cost of some good and the production of it so that, for example, it might be more accessible in developing economies. Wikipedia defines <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frugal_innovation">frugal engineering</a><b> </b>in this way and states that the term "refers to removing nonessential features from a durable good, such as a car or phone, in order to sell it in developing countries. Designing products for such countries may also call for an increase in durability and selling them, reliance on unconventional distributions channels. Sold to so-called "overlooked consumers", firms hope volume will offset razor-thin profit margins. Globalization and rising incomes in developing countries may also drive frugal innovation." <b> </b></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px; min-height: 16px;">
<b></b><br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 13px;">
Importantly, the result of frugal engineering is not products (or processes) with inferior quality. But there is an emphasis on low cost of product. So, to insure reasonable margin, production must be similarly efficient.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
There is always a tension between "built to last" and "built to last long enough!" This becomes a major issue in closed loop systems such as those illustrated with the Ricoh Comet Circle and other closed loop scenarios. We covered the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/07/defining-terms.html">comet circle</a> some time ago. (And from <a href="http://www.ricoh.com/environment/management/concept.html">Ricoh</a>). The comet circle, shown below from Ricoh,</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrx44dVkjm5lo7tG2iT6sJvGJKCpqciak5jS-yRHhngJf5s4diDvc4iDDQgkHu0kUh4QnjeUiekcqRuLF-uJmAX-pejPJqWDo0UjkAs0RogM6Mcu1gerXObTUbNDEKKFs4VjbUbrimUGE/s1600/Comet+Circle-cropped.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="172" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjrx44dVkjm5lo7tG2iT6sJvGJKCpqciak5jS-yRHhngJf5s4diDvc4iDDQgkHu0kUh4QnjeUiekcqRuLF-uJmAX-pejPJqWDo0UjkAs0RogM6Mcu1gerXObTUbNDEKKFs4VjbUbrimUGE/s400/Comet+Circle-cropped.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
shows both the forward and reverse logistics path we've discussed before - material flowing via the product to the consumer and then material flowing to other uses after product use by the consumer. The "most sustainable" here is the loop that goes back to the consumer with the same product providing the same function. The challenge of "built to last" vs "built to last long enough" plays an important role here. Products with long lives will be more reasonably returned to similar use at a similar functional level. Products which fail, or the obnoxious subset of failure, being overcome by new technology, will have longer loops and, by definition, be less sustainable.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
So, how do we decide where is the "sweet spot" between designing products (made of components) that last a long time vs those that fail earlier. One critical question is "should we design (and make) all the components to fail at the same time and incur the extra cost and, likely, over design, or should we let one or more components fail earlier and then reuse the remaining components as with remanufacturing?</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Engineers have been dealing with the tradeoff between product design, quality and failure for a long time. This is usually discussed as part of product reliability. <a href="http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue21/hottopics21.htm">Dennis Wilkins</a> (retired from HP) explains that reliability engineers characterize the lifetime of a population of products using a graphical representation called the "bathtub curve." The bathtub curve is characterized by three periods in a product life: an infant mortality period (early failure) </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiy9_wK9n3gg_6mhvm-i__WXEb_WLbMRn6n8BG7mCbr03OM_c3OUGC6Do8T57uGx4tR0w75oQ7E7utBHetnFAOHHOlOfjcwBuuGC28nrK-TKl81WGn0b-XnzsF54k5hlIwCIaWDCRAvtQ/s1600/bathtub+curve.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgiy9_wK9n3gg_6mhvm-i__WXEb_WLbMRn6n8BG7mCbr03OM_c3OUGC6Do8T57uGx4tR0w75oQ7E7utBHetnFAOHHOlOfjcwBuuGC28nrK-TKl81WGn0b-XnzsF54k5hlIwCIaWDCRAvtQ/s400/bathtub+curve.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
with a decreasing failure rate, then a normal life period (also known as "useful life") with a low, relatively constant failure rate, and ending up with a wear-out period of accreted failure exhibiting an increasing failure rate. Engineers try to reduce failures at each stage of product life by efforts such as "burn-in" or running the product for some time to catch early failures or other tests to attempt to screen out infant mortality failures. Design and manufacturing choices can reduce (or increase!) failures at any stage - depending on quality of components and design and production.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Professor Sami Kara and colleagues at the University of New South Wales in Australia have studied this problem, as applied to appliances, for some time. The studies explore the useful life of components with the thought to identifying those that have significant use in a second life versus those that fail with the appliance. This can drive the economic models for re-manufacturing but is dependent on simple ways to estimate which components have life left and, importantly, how to assess this easily and reliably. Challenges include the cost of testing procedures that might increase labor costs for remanufacturing or re-use, necessity for disassembly of an appliance to access the component to assess its condition, inaccurate test data with respect to condition, degradation or remaining life and questions about number of samples that need to be tested to get reliable data.(see "<a href="http://infohouse.p2ric.org/ref/12/11422.pdf">Reliability assessment of components in consumer products - a statistical and condition monitoring data analysis strateg</a>y" by Mazhar, Kara and Kaehernick, 2005). </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Kara describes some of their studies showing that some very inexpensive components of large appliances fail early and render the appliance unusable - and often it would be very inexpensive to improve these components for a dramatically longer product life. One that comes to mind is the door seal on a residential refrigerator. But when is "good enough" for a product component good enough?!</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
So, that's one consideration in design, production and life of the product.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Another consideration is product efficiency improvements resulting from new technologies. If product technology (in tens of operating energy or resource consumption) changes rapidly it might be advantageous to upgrade products (meaning change and replace) more often. Alternately, if product technology evolves slowly, there may be little advantage, from a consumption angle, to upgrading. The tipping point is with respect to embodied energy in the product.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Julian Allwood, who's been mentioned before in this blog, covers the tradeoff in his book Allwood and Cullen, Sustainable Materials with Both Eyes Open, UIT, Cambridge, 2012. There are two distinct strategies depending on whether or not the product has "high embodied energy" or "low embodied energy". Recall that embodied energy is the energy (and resources with their energy footprints) required to manufacture the product. Products with high embodied energy and low energy in use are candidates for replacement less often with technology enhancements while product with low embodied energy and high energy in use with improving efficiency are candidates for replacement more often as seen below. The strategy can have a big impact on the cumulative emissions (as from the energy) over the life</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYB_YEGve0bPtIUwdgMd2yiYQYVd5hjeEZVoqTCS2tj_-EiZrGYZbsy6KNFL4YVfgZ05chcWBRJxwUIezpgs5AxVtMHrV6t16hWC9w8-Xe7jum8HFmISviz6vbdwCejcZyCulBsL4H4CQ/s1600/product+change+frequency.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="236" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgYB_YEGve0bPtIUwdgMd2yiYQYVd5hjeEZVoqTCS2tj_-EiZrGYZbsy6KNFL4YVfgZ05chcWBRJxwUIezpgs5AxVtMHrV6t16hWC9w8-Xe7jum8HFmISviz6vbdwCejcZyCulBsL4H4CQ/s400/product+change+frequency.jpg" width="400" /></a></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
cycle of the product. This was the issue we discussed some time ago with respect to the "cash for clunkers" program as part of the recovery - it would be advantageous, from an environmental angle, to replace an old car with a newer car only if the newer car had sufficiently better fuel economy to offset over its life the embedded energy of the vehicle it was replacing plus save fuel.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Enough to consider for the moment! We'll pursue this more with respect to frugal engineering and green in the next posting.<br />
<br />
And, follow us on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/GreenManufacturingBerkeley">Facebook</a> for more current items and observations - Facebook.com/GreenManufacturingBerkeley!</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-32694174288659102042013-02-27T17:35:00.000-08:002013-02-27T17:35:33.472-08:00Innovation and Sustainability<br />
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
(Or creating "new" value)</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
In one of my previous posts the subject of externalized costs was dealt with in some detail (see the posting of December 29th, 2012 to be specific.) The idea that we are not really paying for the true expenses associated with the products we consume. The discussion went on to muse about how we might address that.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
You might also recall a posting in this blog a long time ago (July 2009) speaking about the "<a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.de/2009/07/why-green-manufacturing-part-of-next.html">next leap forward</a>" in manufacturing. The evolution of manufacturing in terms of productivity, flexibility, response time, work philosophy or business model, and market responsiveness/customer “pull” shows the evidence of tremendous changes from the earliest organized industry or manufacturing in the 1800s up to today. These changes correspond to distinct periods of production. These periods can be characterized as the craft period, mass production period, flexible production period and lean manufacturing period. The point was that, over the years in the progress of manufacturing, different individuals observed ways to increase the value of the operation by, for example, increasing machine availability, reducing errors/increasing yield, organizational improvements, etc. and then adjusted/modified the processes or systems or business models to capture that value. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
On a recent trip to Europe for a conference I spent some time catching up on magazines I never get to spend enough time with. The <a href="http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569381-idea-innovation-and-new-technology-have-stopped-driving-growth-getting-increasing">Economist </a>issue of January 12th had an article titled "Has the ideas machine broken down" on the loss (or apparent loss of) innovation in the world - specially the US. It showed a number of types of data purporting to show the decline in growth of GDP per capita (specifically the decline in "percent increase on previous year") in the US starting in about 1950 after several hundred years of steady increase year over year. Don't worry - the GDP/person is still increasing in the US as it is in the world, but the rate of increase is declining. The article quotes Peter Thiel, one of the founders of PayPal, an internet payment company, and the first outside investor in Facebook, a social network, who says that "innovation in America is 'somewhere between dire straits and dead'. Engineers in all sorts of areas share similar feelings of disappointment. And a small but growing group of economists reckon the economic impact of the innovations of today may pale in comparison with those of the past."</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Wow. Could it be we don't need any more gadgets or apps?! Maybe we need something that generates real new wealth!</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Could sustainable, or at least green, manufacturing be a way to both enhance value and real growth (meaning insure that the resources created by successful businesses and their employees go to growth and not to fix problems created by non- sustainable practices)? That is, if we are not taxed with the costs of healthcare required to "fix" the impacts on humans of pollution (air, water or land), work related problems (hearing loss, injury, etc.), disposal of waste from production and consumption, wouldn't we be able to put some of that revenue towards growing our economy and,at the same time, improve the standard of living of a lot off people?</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
This semester Dr. Margot Hutchins and I are teaching the Sustainable Manufacturing graduate course in Mechanical Engineering at Berkeley. We have a great group of students who are engaged in the issues, challenges and opportunities. So, a week ago I was starting a lecture on linking manufacturing to sustainability and made the statement to the effect that "there are only three means to create new value in the economy - mining, agriculture and manufacture." Everything else is just redistributing that money in some way (Wall Street/banking money changers, healthcare and education sectors, various other services -- insurance, haircuts, making frapuccinos, etc).</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
The reaction of the class was strong and immediate. Howls of concern were raised ranging from the inappropriateness of using GDP as a measure of value created (referring to an earlier discussion of the IPAT equation in the class) to comments that this does not value the work or contributions of service sector, psychologists, hairdressers, etc. I tried to explain that this does not create anything "new" and, in some cases, is questionable as to any value. But, the class was not convinced.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
So, I resolved to prepare some more background information to prepare the discussion better and try to offer a more reasoned argument.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Although I've seen it referred to in other documents, Bob Lutz, former Chrysler executive and auto industry driver, summed it up like this in a New York Times opinion piece (“Coming Back Home,” New York Times, August 4, 2011):</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
“From the earliest days of economic activity, it's always been recognized that there are only three ways to add value. The first is to "get it out of the ground" by mining (or drilling), thus creating a commercial commodity where none existed before. The second, of course, is "grow it": prepare the soil, fertilize, seed and harvest; again producing, through agriculture, an economically desirable product. The third, and most important, is "making it": using ingenuity, labor and capital to transform the products of mining and growing into hard tangible consumer goods. Other activities, like services, are helpful, but they do not create new wealth the way mining, agriculture and manufacturing do.”</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
This is bolstered by data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis in their input-output tables (available at <a href="http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_industry.cfm">link</a>). That data shows the economic activity generated per unit of output of a sector. Manufacturing and agriculture are the only two sectors for which one dollar of activity generates more than one dollar of broader economic activity - $1.35 and 1.20, respectively. All others generate less and sometimes significantly less, for example, transportation $0.95 and retail $0.55. Mining is not included in the data.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
There is an interesting discussion on this topic on the "as green as it gets.org" <a href="http://www.asgreenasitgets.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=232:creating-wealth&catid=31:franklins-world&Itemid=604">website</a>. First, they distinguish between creating wealth and getting rich. They list a few examples - I can inherit a million dollars, and I’d be rich, but I didn’t create any wealth. I can convince my government that I’m a good candidate for a research fellowship, and I can get wealthy regardless of what I create. I can steal from my neighbor and make myself wealthy without making wealth. I can exploit natural resources and pull trees out of the jungle and generate income, though most of the wealth was actually generated by Mother Nature.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Turns out, economists identify four different economies: </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Primary economies - the production or extraction of raw materials such as agriculture, forestry, </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>mining, fishing.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Secondary economies - manufacturing and processing.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Tertiary economies - retail, distribution, and service. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>- Quaternary economies - research and development, creating ideas and inventions that can later be<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span> used by folks in other sections to make a new or better product.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
So, continuing to draw on the "asgreenasitgets.org" discussion, wealth is principally generated in manufacturing. In Primary economies, we utilize wealth from Mother Nature. In Secondary economies, we manufacture wealth. In Tertiary economies, we move wealth around. In Quaternary economies, we prepare the manufacturing sector to make more wealth. If you are going to create wealth (which should not be confused with making someone wealthy) you must manufacture. And, the more value added in manufacturing, the more wealth you create.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
So, back to innovation and green manufacturing. I used what I thought would be my killer closing argument with the class by again referring to the IPAT equation. In that equation, you'll recall, one term that engineers can influence is "impact/GDP." Meaning, if we wish to offset or blunt the drive for improved standards of living by people around the world (hence consuming more of everything) and the continuous growth of population, then we need to develop manufacturing technologies that reduce the impact (environmental, social, etc.) associated with production and GDP growth. </div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
That's where innovation needs to come in. Processes and systems in the secondary economy that convert materials into new products with substantially reduced impact.</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
We've actually discussed a number of these kinds of "innovative manufacturing" technologies in other postings here. And we will keep introducing them from time to time as examples of what can be accomplished. As a member of the fourth economy - this is my small contribution to creating wealth.</div>
<div style="font-family: Arial; font-size: 10px; min-height: 11px;">
<br /></div>
David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-14056773615413138782013-01-29T15:21:00.000-08:002013-01-29T15:24:02.616-08:00Insourcing and green manufacturing<br />
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
Or how to win friends and influence people</div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px;">
</div>
My <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2009/07/why-green-manufacturing-part-of-next.html">dad</a>, as I mentioned in a blog some time ago, was a tool room supervisor for a large John Deere factory in Wisconsin. In his role, which he went into after becoming a journeyman machinist and toolmaker himself (the kind of skills manufacturing is looking for these days and can't find enough of!) was to supervise a large department of similarly talented machinists and tool makers who were tasked with building the tooling and other hardware needed in the factory to make the components of the products Deere built there.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
<div style="font-size: 13px;">
<span style="font-size: 12px;">As he took on more and more management he was encouraged by his supervisor to take a class in management and leadership. In those days a very popular course was fashioned by a man named Dale Carnegie and accompanied by a book by Mr. Carnegie titled "How to win friends and influence people." According to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People">Wikipedia</a> </span><i>How to Win Friends and Influence People</i> is one of the first best-selling self-help books ever published. First published in 1936, it has sold 15 million copies world-wide. The first of twelve things the book promised to do for the reader was "Get you out of a mental rut, give you new thoughts, new visions, new ambitions." Other deliverables included making you a better speaker and leader.</div>
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
The book, and the course I presume, offered guidelines and tips about communication, working with people and getting the most of interactions with your co-workers or direct reports as well a how to turn challenges into opportunity. Or, perhaps, how to turn opportunity into bigger opportunity!<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
I thought of this the other day when reading an article in The Economist (January 19th, 2013) talking about the move to insourcing jobs by many US companies (talk about getting out of a mental rut!). The article covered the expected reasons for this ranging from increasing labor costs in many formerly low- wage countries, quality issues, increased advanced manufacturing technology in the US, long delivery times due to shipping from overseas, supply chain interruptions, disconnect between design and manufacturing and the inherent confusion that creates etc. Also, as the labor content of manufactured products decreases, the incentive to move to lower wage locations decreases since the potential savings is reduced. We'll talk more about automation and sustainability in a future posting.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
You can add to that the challenges of supply chains, linking innovation to manufacturing when R&D are separated by an ocean and, specially for energy intensive products, the cost and availability of energy.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
It did not, surprisingly, mention any of the concerns raised here about environmental issues with offshore production, carbon footprint, or the social impacts of complex supply chains.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
My first reaction was - what a great opportunity insourcing offers (and the assumed re-industrialization that implies) to use our engineering skills to insure these are greener processes and systems at the same time. Now, I fully realize that we are not talking of the re-invention of industry in the US but a "rolling renovation" of processes, systems and facilities to address this insourcing. Shouldn't this rolling renovation include green manufacturing?<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
What kind of innovation are we talking about?<br />
- enhanced productivity (remember our goal of reducing impact/GDP from the <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2012/07/the-s-word-part-i.html">IPAT equation</a>!?)<br />
- green technology wedges for<br />
- reducing waste in processes (increasing material yield)<br />
- increasing energy efficiency<br />
- more renewable energy supplies or energy recovery in manufacturing<br />
- improved material selection (less hazardous/toxic and more recyclable<br />
or renewable materials)<br />
- new process technologies and/ or hybrid processes<br />
- enhanced efficient factory operation<br />
- leveraging<br />
- and so on (dig back through the the older blogs for more specifics!)<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
Insourcing means business decision making - considering the return on investment or the old "bang for the buck". That decision making needs to include the results of green manufacturing innovation.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
Interestingly, a recent report on manufacturing from McKinsey (<a href="http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/mgi/research/productivity_competitiveness_and_growth/the_future_of_manufacturing">Manufacturing the future: the next era of global growth and innovation</a> published in November, 2012 addresses some of this. We'll delve more into this report in a later posting - it is ripe with information and justification for greening manufacturing as part of a savvy business strategy and, additionally, as the right thing to do.<br />
<br />
As part of a discussion on "innovation in production" it includes green manufacturing as one of the trends worldwide - even in China. Energy productivity and reduction of greenhouse gases are drivers of manufacturing innovation.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
The report lists many of the items we've covered in this blog in the past - reduced carbon emissions by adjusting the source of energy, process energy, energy recovery from processing for re-use, facility heating and ventilating, etc. The report claims that energy costs can make up to 20% of the "land costs" for energy intensive products. Here energy intensive products are referring to chemicals, cement and aluminum but the reference covers a wide range of products with lower, but significant, energy costs. So, from embedded energy in materials in products to process energy, to system and facility resource consumption - innovation and green manufacturing go hand in hand.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
With increased energy supplies in the US, much of it natural gas or "clean" energy, the insourcing of manufacturing if it materializes as predicted will spur substantial manufacturing activity including the refurbishment or building of new manufacturing facilities, the restructuring of supply chains, and so on.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
This is an opportunity to include environmental metrics into the economics of insourcing decisions. There is a lot of evidence in the business press, this blog or other blogs (like Green-biz or Environmental Leader) to substantiate the business case for this. Even more, as we are able to quantify them, add the social impact aspect as well.<br />
<div style="min-height: 14px;">
<br /></div>
This is an opportunity we cannot afford to take lose And wouldn't our actions on this win friends and influence people? Dale Carnegie would be proud!<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-88152983992729955562012-12-29T15:25:00.001-08:002012-12-31T12:03:44.954-08:00The "S" word, Part V<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Who should share the responsibility for all this?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Almost two years ago exactly, <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2010/12/humbug.html">December 2010</a>, this blog addressed the different changes in our collective thinking that might usher in a sustainable world. It was argued that this depended to a great extent on folks "getting it" with respect to how people view sustainability and their responsibility (personal and corporate - although I understand some believe corporations are individuals!). </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I quoted Lester Brown and his observations on this. He compared the change in thinking needed relative to sustainability (and sustainable development, industry, products, etc.) as the realization of the notion that the earth revolves around the sun and not the other way around. Mr. Brown noted that we used to consider the environment as part of the economy but it is really that the economy is part of the environment. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lester_R._Brown">Wikipedia</a> quotes his speech in 2008 stating " 'indirect costs are shaping our future,' and by ignoring these, "we're doing exactly the same thing as Enron- leaving costs off the books. Consuming today with no concern for tomorrow is not a winning philosophy.' "</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">So, it boils down to, first, accepting the idea that there are indirect costs associated with the environment, second, identifying these indirect costs in a comprehensive way, third, assessing the "ownership" of these costs to the appropriate stakeholders (the "term du jour" for those involved in the process or benefitting/suffering from the outcome; or, according to Merriam-Webster - "one that has a stake in an enterprise or one who is involved in or affected by a course of action") and, fourth (the tricky bit), getting the stakeholders to accept responsibility, or pay in some cases, for their part of the indirect costs.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the older blog posting referenced above, I also cited Hawken and Lovins, in "Natural Capitalism" (Little Brown, 1999), commenting that “The best solutions are based not on tradeoffs or “balance” between these objectives [economic, environmental and social policy] but on design integration achieving all of them together - at every level, from technical devices to production systems to companies to economic sectors to entire cities and societies.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Achieving the economic, environmental and social policy objectives all together across all sectors from producers to consumers.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Great concept. How can we do this?! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In Berkeley, I pay for the removal of my waste each week - divided into three containers - compostable waste (i.e. lawn waste and food products), trash (nothing recyclable left - at least recyclable as defined by the City of Berkeley) and recyclable waste - glass, plastic and metal recyclables. Regardless of where the contents of these three containers was generated (at the farm, as packaging for a product I purchased or had sent to me from an on-line retailer, end of life items,etc.) I pay to have them removed from my household. If the producer creates a product with a larger or smaller carbon footprint (or environmental damage) I see no difference in my waste bill. I do pay, probably, more in property taxes, etc. to cover the cost of environmental impacts on my fellow citizens who need special treatment due to air, water or soil problems associated with production, use and disposal of products. On a national level I am sure I am covering this cost for many who rely on the resources of their governments to help them if they are not able to, or don't have, coverage for such problems. And, to the extent that the manufacturer (if located in the US) or the distributor or local retailer pay fees and taxes and to the extent some of those go to support such services, they are paying something as well. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">If I want to impact what I pay for waste/recycling removal my recourse is to consume less, chose manufacturers who package efficiently, use less. And I do. But this is hardly enough.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span><span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">These costs are not seen on the bottom line of the business as clearly linked to their product or service and its "sustainability."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the earlier blog I had referred to California's introduction of "cap and trade" as one possible approach to accommodating these indirect costs. This might be one way to "rethink the structure and reward system of commerce" to bring the external costs firmly into play. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">I was thinking about this over this holiday period as part of the preparation for this posting. I am an avid reader of the New Yorker (ok, first the cartoons, then the articles). In the comment section under "The Talk of the Town" (sort of an opinion piece at the beginning of the magazine) in the December 10th issue was a column written by Elizabeth Kolbert, a staff writer for the magazine titled "Paying for it" and dealing with, this issue. If you are not a New Yorker reader bear with me a bit ... it is worth it!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ms. Kolbert's piece begins with a short review of a work by Arthur Pigou, a British economist, titled "The Economics of Welfare" first published in 1920. In this work, Pigou develops the concept of externalities in some detail and uses their existence as a justification for government intervention. The article starts out relating an example from Pigou about a man in a bar. After ordering a couple of drinks he staggers out drunk. Pigou describes this scenario as follows: the man gets plastered, the bar owner gets the man's money, and the public will be on the hook for any expenses related to the police finding this drunk in the bushes somewhere and escorting him home or, worse, to an emergency room for treatment. The government may attempt to tax this product (alcohol here) and use some of the money to offset the public cost of such scenarios. In the words of Ms. Kolbert "The idea is to incorporate into the cost of what might seem to be a purely personal choice the expenses it foists on the rest of society."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">In the rest of the article, she reasons that one way to think about global warming (where in general the results of one set of actions of producers, etc., driven to a great extent by another group disconnected from the first set, the consumers, but for which the full costs resulting from the extraction of resources, conversion of resource, distribution of products manufactured from these resources, and consumption of the resources including the "end of life" disposal, is not covered by the consumer but, ultimately the public at large) is like our friend at the bar. She replaces "bar" with "gas station", "downing a few rounds" with "filling up" our vehicle, and "staggering out" with "driving off." The gas station and oil company got its money for its product, the consumer got "his tank full" and the public at large got stuck with the carbon it took to refine and distribute the petroleum now in the atmosphere and is now spewing out of the tailpipe of the car when combusted. If this carbon builds up to sufficient levels (and adds to that from other sources of course) the atmosphere warms, sea levels rise and storms get more disastrous and "once again, it's the public at large that gets left with the bill." </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Ms. Kolbert observes that the "logical, which is to say fair, way to make the driver absorb the cost of his slice of the damage … could be achieved by a new … tax on carbon." The rest of the article goes on to comment about various political initiatives in DC and elsewhere to address the idea of putting a cost on carbon.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Obviously, the other element here is that, to keep competitive, the companies making and selling the automobiles will try to make them as fuel efficient as possible to offset the additional cost of the carbon from the auto operation. Hmmmm, like hybrids? Or the high efficiency diesels in Europe?</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Now, lest you all think I am some sort of closet socialist (my Berkeley connection notwithstanding!), I want to assure you that I consider this healthy thinking and the prominence of such discussions about externalized costs is heartening and, in fact, is more broadly considered than one might think - even by the business community.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Some of it is pure competitiveness. A blog back in <a href="http://green-manufacturing.blogspot.com/2010/08/thats-one-way-to-do-it.html">August of 2010</a> addressed some of the issues associated with carbon trading. An article in the New York Times about the recent auction of CO2 allowances and the "<a href="http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/20/californias-co2-now-has-a-price-but-a-low-one/">new cost of CO2 in California</a>" describes the recent auction of carbon credits in California and another Times article mentions how the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/25/business/energy-environment/california-manufacturers-weigh-costs-of-new-greenhouse-gas-rules.html?pagewanted=1&hp">basis for a company's carbon footprint</a> is determined. The article states that, with respect to those worried that this will make the companies less competitive if this additional cost is factored in, " … such a cost-centric analysis ignores the jobs and economic activity that the law could generate. Emission and efficiency standards for cars, buildings and appliances in California over the last four decades have succeeded in cleaning the air, making residents’ per-capita energy use rate among the lowest in the country and spurring innovations and new industries, like the one that arose around catalytic converters."</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">More to be said about this for sure. But, to me at least, including all the costs of a product into the price the consumer pays insures that everyone pays their "fair share" and encourages innovation. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">And that's what engineers do - innovate. What better task than to innovate to create greener manufacturing?!</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Final note - Our book "<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Green-Manufacturing-Fundamentals-Applications-Technology/dp/1441960155">Green Manufacturing: Fundamentals and Applications</a>" written by the researchers in the Laboratory for Manufacturing and Sustainability (LMAS) at UC Berkeley is now available. It can be found on Amazon. The book introduces the basic definitions and issues surrounding green manufacturing at the process,machine and system (including supply chain) levels. It also shows, by way of several examples from different industry sectors, the potential for substantial improvement and the paths to achieve the improvement. Additionally, this book discusses regulatory and government motivations for green manufacturing and outlines the path for making manufacturing more green as well as making production more sustainable. You can preview the book online at Amazon and see the table of contents. This also makes a perfect new year's gift! </span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Don't forget to follow us on <a href="http://www.facebook.com/GreenManufacturingBerkeley">Facebook </a>Green Manufacturing - Berkeley for more frequent comments and insights.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;"><br /></span>
<span style="font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;">Happy New Year!</span>David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4690452568569296395.post-39005450473408661972012-11-26T21:52:00.001-08:002012-11-26T23:11:44.107-08:00The "S" word, Part IV Sustainable capitalism<br />
<br />
As part of the discussions on the interrelationship between sustainability and economics referred to in the last posting an interesting report, titled "sustainable capitalism" popped up. The report was prepared in early 1012 by Generation Investment Management, LLP, a UK firm and can be accessed free at their <a href="http://www.generationim.com/media/pdf-generation-sustainable-capitalism-v1.pdf">corporate link</a>. One must always read such reports prepared by folks with a particular view toward industry, capitalism and investment, carefully. But, it is interesting and, for sure, we all have "our views!"<br />
<br />
To quote directly from the executive summary of the report:<br />
<br />
"The challenges facing the planet today are unprecedented and extraordinary; climate change, water scarcity, poverty, disease, growing inequality of income and wealth, demographic shifts, trans-border and internal migration, urbanisation and a global economy in a state of constant dramatic volatility and flux, to name but a few. While governments and civil society will need to be part of the solution to these massive challenges, ultimately it will be companies and investors that will mobilise the capital needed to overcome them.<br />
<br />
To address these sustainability challenges, we advocate for a paradigm shift to Sustainable Capitalism; a framework that seeks to maximise long-term economic value creation by reforming markets to address real needs while considering all costs and stakeholders.<br />
<br />
The objective of this paper is twofold. First, we make the economic case for mainstreaming Sustainable Capitalism by highlighting the fact that it does not represent a trade-off with profit maximisation but instead actually fosters superior long-term value creation."<br />
<br />
They go on to recommend five specific actions that they suggest will accelerate the "mainstreaming of Sustainable Capitalism" by the end of this decade.<br />
<br />
These are (summarized from the report):<br />
<br />
1. IDENTIFY AND INCORPORATE RISKS FROM STRANDED ASSETS - they define "stranded assets" as "those with a value that would change dramatically, either positively or negatively, under certain scenarios such as a reasonable price on carbon or water, or improved regulation of labour standards in emerging economies."<br />
<br />
2. MANDATE INTEGRATED REPORTING - this is intended to allow more comprehensive insight into companies which is now lacking in spite of increases in the volume of information made available by companies and the frequency with which it is produced.<br />
<br />
3. END THE DEFAULT PRACTICE OF ISSUING QUARTERLY EARNINGS GUIDANCE - it has long been argued that relying on quarterly earnings statements creates incentives for short term management at the expense of the longer-term, more meaningful measure of sustainable value creation.<br />
<br />
4. ALIGN COMPENSATION STRUCTURES WITH LONG-TERM SUSTAINABLE PERFORMANCE - since most current compensation schemes reward short-term actions disproportionately they fail to hold corporations accountable for the ramifications of their decisions over the long term. Financial rewards should instead be paid out over the period during which these results are realized, and<br />
<br />
5. ENCOURAGE LONG-TERM INVESTING WITH LOYALTY-DRIVEN SECURITIES - This practice encourage long-term investment horizons among investors and facilitate stability in financial markets, therefore playing an important role in mainstreaming Sustainable Capitalism.<br />
<br />
Wow.<br />
<br />
These actions would substantially change they business climate around the world if carried out. What the likelihood of this happening is not known. But to start, the report goes on to describe these ideas in greater detail and includes additional "broader ideas" among which are "integrating sustainability into business education at all levels."<br />
<br />
Of course, if one accomplishes that, it will be up to the product designers and manufacturers to execute the business functions at the production level to make this work.<br />
<br />
That is, of course, if the company actually "makes something."<br />
<br />
The service industry or other non-manufacturing sectors generate less than one dollar of economic activity for every dollar of sector output - unlike manufacturing and agriculture which return more in economic activity than the sector output alone - see the US Government's <a href="http://www.bea.gov/iTable/index_industry.cfm">Bureau of Economic Analysis</a> for more data. Manufacturing and agriculture return $1.35 and $1.20, respectively, in economic activity for every $1 of sector output. Construction, transportation, info tech, finance, etc are less than $1 and as low as $.55 for the retail trade sector.<br />
<br />
So, if you want to "leverage" the economy to drive sustainable capitalism - start with manufacturing and agriculture!<br />
<br />
Now, if you'd like another perspective including a view of the past and and how we got where we are today and how to become sustainable, I suggest you check out this link to a UK company called RSA Animations. In this animation, titled "<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJ-J91SwP8w">300 Years of FOSSIL FUELS in 300 Seconds</a>" a lecture with some very clever animation outlines some ideas for a sustainable world (in spite of capitalism!) I recently came across a number of very interesting animated lectures by RSA while visiting a friend and attending a conference in Brazil. The one I first saw was on capitalism and you can see it by googling RSA Animation and capitalism.<br />
<br />
Finally, the <a href="http://www.facebook.com/GreenManufacturingBerkeley">Green Manufacturing Facebook</a> page associated with this blog is constantly updated with tidbits on the topic of green manufacturing, anecdotes, examples and stories of interest - check it out too!David Dornfeldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08146655060394406346noreply@blogger.com2