Is green lean? (Last of a III part series)

(Or ... is lean green?)

We have been discussing the connection between lean and green. Lean has as its objectives removing everything and anything from the production process that does not add value (in the eyes of the customer) to the product.

If we recall Ohno's "seven wastes" to be avoided (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)#The_seven_wastes) -

1. Overproduction and early production – producing over customer requirements, producing unnecessary materials / products
2. Waiting – time delays, idle time (time during which value is not added to the product)
3. Transportation – multiple handling, delay in materials handling, unnecessary handling
4. Inventory – holding or purchasing unnecessary raw materials, work in process, and finished goods
5. Motion – actions of people or equipment that do not add value to the product
6. Over-processing – unnecessary steps or work elements / procedures (non added value work)
7. Defective units – production of a part that is scrapped or requires rework

and, to extend the thinking, we can add in some of Deming's 14 points (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming; and excluding for the moment the ones dealing mostly with management practice, work standards, and barriers). These include the need for constant improvement in production and service and less reliance on inspection as a means to insure quality - all for delivering more value to the customer (or the next downstream link in the supply chain).

Reviewing the list, and realizing that it was developed and promoted before the current concern about the environment and green manufacturing was so commonly of interest, we see many that map directly onto green manufacturing practice. Head of the list is producing more than is needed, or storing/inventorying more than needed, unnecessary transportation, unnecessary work steps or processes - all can be "converted" into wasted resources, energy, and other consumables or the indirect of these wastes (such as floor space and HVAC costs, additional tooling and the manufacture and operation of it, unneeded raw materials and the associated imbedded energy, transport, storage and recycling.)

It was on the basis of Ohno's and Deming's work that lean production was established.

In the last posting we introduced the value stream map (VSM) methodology commonly employed as a tool in lean production analysis. The procedures for VSM are well established and they are beginning to be introduced through a number of good starts in the market.  In this process a very detailed assessment of the present state of a production system is determined by identifying all the process boxes with all the inputs/outputs along with  critical process data for each box (cycle time, changeover time, uptime, production batch sizes, scrap rate etc.) This information would be used to assess the ratio of lead time to value added time (basically summation of productive to non-productive time using the definitions of a few blogs ago) to ascertain the efficiency of operation. This is represented in the figure below.

This information, on a process by process (or stage by stage) basis, can be used to identify points in the process or system for improvement.

There is much more to it but this forms the basis of the idea.

Now, recall the string of boxes used to represent a process in the first of this series on November 11. These were referred to as a "process box" similar to the ones to be analyzed in value stream mapping. For each of these boxes, the VSM analysis determines a number of specifics about the operation - the ones we mentioned above - and represents them with the process as shown in the figure below (except here we've added a box to represent energy, consumable consumption and waste - not usually tracked in conventional VSM.)

With this information (the "big picture of what is happening in the box) we are set for the analysis. But, we also know some important information that allows us to assess the impact of that process. With the motor power consumption on a per unit time basis during processing we can estimate the energy used in the process. And from the energy  (and the local conversion factor between energy and green house gases based on the energy supply, i.e. coal, hydro, solar, etc.) we can estimate green house gas generation.

We also know whether or not other consumables are used (water, lubricants, cutting fluid, cleaning solvents, towels/wipes, etc.) during the process. And, on a piece by piece basis, we know how much waste is generated either during processing or during changeover from one part type to another part type. (Remember, one of the key elements of lean production is balancing the flexibility of a production line with the required minimum lot size to meet "pull" demands of the customer or downstream supply chain - at some point changeover time exceeds the cycle time and we reach a point of diminishing return).

This approach is being proposed by, among others, Future State Solutions, Inc. (see http://futurestatesolutions.com/default.aspx) who have developed an integrated lean and green analysis tool called value stream enterprise management for assessing the "triple bottom line". They have a more detailed description of their approach to the lean and green tool on their site. (And, I will mention that I have no relationship with Future State Solutions but I found their information helpful in understanding the potential linkage between lean and green.)

But we can go deeper in this "lean and green" analysis. Inside the process box, tied to the peculiarities of the process (for example, the individual motions of a machine, or steps in an assembly, or actions of a complex process) there is more gold to be mined. Remember, Ohno and Deming were looking for wasted effort and resources at all levels.

Next time we will be boring deeper into the process box. But, for the moment, the linkage between lean methodology and green and sustainable production analysis is a promising collaboration that will offer valuable insight to process improvement that is both economically and environmentally sound - and would likely make the early proponents of lean production quite pleased.

Is green lean? (Part II of a III part series)

(Or ... is lean green?)

In the last posting we started the discussion about lean and green. Lean has for sure been a hot topic for some time and now it is being closely connected to green manufacturing by a number of solution providers and others - usually with good reason.

Oh, and you might notice that I have inserted another part to the series! We need more time on this one so it is now a 3 part series.

We started by looking more closely at a manufacturing system comprised of discrete processes (represented as boxes) assembled into a system (connecting a number of boxes). each process box had certain characteristics of inputs and outputs and was responsible for adding some value to the product moving through the system. It was apparent that some boxes don't "add value" for various reasons but are still included in the process.

This was the preamble to a discussion about using the cycle time as "productively as possible."  In other words - have as little or no waste as possible. Not surprisingly, this is the main objective of green manufacturing. But the definitions for "waste" may be a bit broader than those usually associated with lean manufacturing.

I  referred to a definition of "lean manufacturing" by Wikipedia as a production practice that "considers the expenditure of resources for any goal other than the creation of value for the end customer to be wasteful, and thus a target for elimination." Further to this, we know that there are a number of approaches to "lean."  First approach is nominally the elimination of waste and the tools that assist in uncovering waste in the process and system and getting rid of it. A second approach is more aligned with the Toyota Production System (TPS), which focuses on the the "smoothness" of production and constructing a process with the capability to produce the required results by designing out process inconsistency (or "muri"). This is to be done while trying to maintain as much flexibility as possible since excessive constraints or rigidity often induce waste (as in excessive set up/change over time, high minimum run lot sizes requiring extra inventory or inducing poor response to customer needs, i.e. poor response to "pull.") I listed the seven types of wastes used in TPS in the October 7th posting as part of an initial discussion of TPS.

As an example of the second type of lean manufacturing, Comau recently introduced a "smart assembly" cell focused on the production of high precision complex assemblies as in valve trains for auto engines (for all the details see http://WardsAuto.com/ar/comau_smart_assembly_091109/index.html). Citing the large number of individual machines and process steps used in traditional valve train assembly (some 72 parts in one case at a cycle time of from 25-30 seconds per machine) and several minutes per assembly in total along with a large capital investment), Comau's smart machine replaces the entire line by four operations and a total cycle time of 54 seconds. And, the cell, designed for 325,000 cylinder head annually, requires only 223 sq. meters of floor space compared to 753 sq. meters. And the machine can be reconfigured quickly according to the report.

Although I doubt that Comau was motivated by green manufacturing concerns in its cell design, the cell will have an impact on energy consumption by nature of the reduced number of stand alone processes and, importantly, the tremendous reduction in floor space. (Unless, of course, there is some requirement for "pre-processing" of components to feed into the cell and their accompanying energy and floor space requirements! But, that's why we need to do a careful analysis.)

One of the main tools for the "first type of lean" is the value stream map - charting exactly the material and information flow in the system (and, of course, this can be applied to a wide range of manufacturing and services - it is not restricted to mechanical parts manufacture.) One popular reference on this is the book "Learning to See" by Mike Rother and John Shook (see http://www.amazon.com/Learning-See-Stream-Mapping-Eliminate/dp/0966784308), a practical hands on implementation guide to value stream mapping (VSM). They define a value stream as "all the actions (both value added and non-value added) currently required to bring a product through the main flows essential to every product: (1) the production flow from raw material into the arms of the customer, and (2) the design flow from concept to launch."

Sounds like a promising approach for introducing green manufacturing concepts to the enterprise. It starts with a very careful (and often tedious) assessment of the present state of your production system. This means outlining the process boxes (as illustrated in the last post) with the key interconnections and relationships, and collecting process data for each box. Rother and Shook give examples of this data as: cycle time, changeover time, uptime (on demand machine availability), production batch sizes, number of operators, number of product variations, pack size, working time (minus breaks), and scrap rate.

Many of these characteristics have green implications (meaning they are predictors of energy or resource consumption - like cycle time which can help define process energy. Or scrap rate which is an indication of efficiency of conversion of resources into product.

The procedures for VSM are well established. The use of VSM on green manufacturing analyses is not so well defined, although there are a number of good starts on the market. The best approach is to use the concepts of VSM and lean to compliment the development and operation of efficient manufacturing operations with the requirements of reduced energy and resource utilization - leading towards green and sustainable manufacturing. This will not always be a slam dunk analysis. There will be many aspects of lean (which requires or encourages exceptional levels of process flexibility) which will conflict directly with aspects of green. We can define some of these tradeoffs. Ultimately, the specifics will determine which wins out. But, importantly, this is an attempt to make the analysis more inclusive and systematic.

What we'll cover next time is a brief review of some of the approaches of "using lean to get green" as well as areas that may not be well covered by extending lean concepts to greening manufacturing. And these are usually related to the level of detail needed for tradeoff analysis and process design.

Stay tuned for part 3!

Is green lean? (Part I of a III part series)

And ... is lean green?

Last time the topic was "stylish longevity" and  the role of style in people's choices for purchase and use of products. I introduced a scale of manufactured goods with function (over style or form) on one end and style (over function) on the other end. The concern was how to encourage longevity of a product (from auto to machine tool) for products that might be rendered obsolete by changes in style. In the middle of the scale I had listed a category  of "function and style".

Today in my graduate class on sustainable manufacturing I  had a guest lecture from someone working at "methodhome", a home care and personal care products company that makes and sells environmentally-friendly cleaning products that really are. And they are safe to use in the home and on yourself (see http://www.methodhome.com/). I think I found another example of a product that is both stylish and functional (I had referred to my MacBook in the blog last time as one example). In fact, according to Drummond Lawson, the speaker in my class, the company found a real niche in the market for these types of cleaning products that can compliment the home environment, and make people feel good and/or associate with the product, as a user. Take a look at their bathroom cleaning products to see what I mean. This is a great strategy ... and addresses the tension between style and function. Now, we need to get this kind of innovation into manufacturing (but more on that in weeks to come!)

Now ... back to the topic of today.

We will focus on lean and green for the next three blogs (this one and next two weeks). And, just in case you don't have a lot of time - the short answer is pretty much "yes" to the first question! But there are conditions and tradeoffs to consider when answering the second question.

First, some more background on manufacturing - specially close to the factory floor with the individual processes of production. You may recall the posting of July 27th (part of the "why green manufacturing" series) that spoke about the next great leap forward. This was not the next "five year plan" from some central government office but the movement to sustainable (or at least green) production. The argument was that this will follow the prior big leaps that accompanied the introduction of the assemble line, flexible production and the Toyota Production System or lean manufacturing.

Each of these changes or leaps occurred because of a realization that an improved system of manufacturing could be attained if the system was “designed and optimized” based on an understanding of some new criteria.  And, they all had a monetary value that could be assigned so that the required "cost-benefit" analysis could be done.

The discussion here is on how lean manufacturing lays the groundwork (or one might say offers a convenient platform or structure for) green manufacturing.

But first we need to define some of the terms and details about how the shop floor works. Let's start with a simple representation of a manufacturing line comprised of individual processes. We'll connect the process boxes to make a system.

First, we'll define a process (see the figure below).

This represents all the elements of a production process (such as a machine tool, or assembly robot, injection molding press, punch or forging press, cookie dough mixer, etc.) and includes:

- Process energy
- Machine/process “tare” energy
- Process chemicals
- Other process consumables
- Machine/process operation consumables
- Machine/process operation environment
- Operator consumables
- Operator operation environment

Not included in the box are the other "expenses" associated with utilization of the process, like
- Building
- HVAC
- Process input supply (water, compressed air, etc) infrastructure,
- Process output exhaust infrastructure

You can probably think of a few more.

Typical manufacturing involves a sequence of individual steps, machines, processes all with, often, distinct input and output requirements. We can illustrate this as in the figure below comprised of a string of the process boxes introduced above with inputs and outputs but, in this case, connected to the up-stream and down-stream processes.

This system of interconnected processes usually operates in either a synchronous or asynchronous fashion (meaning, all the parts advance from process to process at the same time in sync or they can advance to the next process when an individual process is complete, respectively). In the case of asynchronous production there is usually some requirement for a buffer or inventory storage/accumulator between stages to accommodate the different cycle times from process to process.

Between these processes there is some transport mechanism for moving the evolving part along.

Each process step takes time. The transport takes time. The accumulated process step times and transport times from the input to the system to the output of the system constitutes the production time (the inverse of which is the cycle time) and defines throughput, lead time, work in process, etc.

Of the time spent in production, there is productive time and non-productive time or, as I like to call it, value added time and non-value added time. If the resources being used are going to increasing the value of the component being processed in each "box" then we might call this productive time. This would be shape changes, added components, painting or coating, etc. If the resources are not adding value (for the customer) then this is non-productive time. This could include transport from process to process, tooling setup time, inspection, time spent in buffer storage, etc. They all add up to comprise the cycle time but don't all add to the product's value as it moves through the system.

The cycle time should be used as "productively as possible." That is the objective of manufacturing engineers. Our capacity in the manufacturing line should be used as completely as possible, be sufficient to handle our production requirements (throughput and batch or lot size). That is - as little or no waste as possible.

Now we get to the lean part! Lean is defined (see Wikipedia for starters, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lean_manufacturing) as a production practice that "considers the expenditure of resources for any goal other than the creation of value for the end customer to be wasteful, and thus a target for elimination."

There is a lot of information available on lean manufacturing and I don't intend to offer a detailed review here. Suffice it to say that "waste reduction thinking", on which the principles of lean production are built, goes back some distance (recall earlier blog references to Henry Ford in his factories and my father after the depression). Since this aligns itself extremely well with  green manufacturing objectives there should be, and I believe is, a natural linkage here.

That is, the practice of lean manufacturing or lean production, if properly applied at a sufficiently detailed level with necessary additional information and data available is to me, inherently, green manufacturing.

And it is to a number of others as well as we shall see next time.

Stay tuned for part 2!

Stylish longevity

I've had a lot of discussion recently with a number of people about green manufacturing and what can actually be done given the complexity of most manufacturing, the constant push to reduce costs and, importantly, the constant urge to "upgrade" products to the latest features and functions. One question that comes up is "how can we ever make product lifetimes long enough to amortize the embedded energy, materials, resources and their impacts to realize any gain?"

We'll cover some ideas about this below.

In the meantime ... I remind anyone who will listen that it is better to be aware of "the way the wind is blowing" (as we used to say when I was in college) than to ignore the trends.

I Illustrated this need to be aware in a presentation recently to a manufacturing conference in Orlando. I called it  the "Everett and Jones" philosophy.  There is a great bar-b-que place in Berkeley of the same name and, in addition to serving up fantastic ribs and a killer sauce, they have signs and bumper stickers posted behind the cash register.

One sign in particular sums it up well to me (and apologies in advance if you were in Orlando and heard this!).  It says

"There are three types of people in the world-

- those that make things happen,
- those that watch things happen, and
- those that say 'what happened?'"!

I tell my students that, at least, we should try to be in the first two categories. We've seen enough, and recently, that proves the last category doesn't work very well.

In the spirit to "making things happen" let's get back to longevity. One of the tenets of sustainable manufacturing is that more durable, longer lifetime products are more sustainable. And, if they are designed to be returned to productive use with the least amount of recycling or remanufacturing this seals the deal. Recall the Comet Circle from Ricoh and the loops closest to the consumer (see the Sept. 21st posting).

This is a challenging problem for many products. We can think about manufactured goods distributed along a scale of characteristics with "function" on one end and "style" on the other. Most products are sold based on a balance between function and style in the eyes of the consumer (whether that is a teenager ogling the latest MP3 player or a family considering a vehicle). Things that tend to be heavy on the style also tend to have short lifecycles (with some exceptions of course - see Louis Vuitton luggage for example).

In fact, the scale is really more like (from left to right) function ----- function/style ------ style.  There is a gradual transition along the scale from totally functional products with little "style" (a large metal forging press, for example) through those that have a balance (like the Mac laptop I am using to write this) to those for which style is everything (I don't know first hand but I'd guess a good example of this is women's shoes - see Jimmy Choo!).

Where our products lie along this scale informs us about ease of  "extending the  lifetime" of the product since it helps define the pressure to replace the product even if the embedded technology is sufficient for our needs (think of how often you need to upgrade software to give you some added bells and whistles that you will seldom, if ever, use - point made!).

So how do we approach this? We can first try to define where our products (or processes) fit along this scale. Most manufacturing machinery and processes fall near the "function" end of the scale. Meaning, if the function is appropriate for our processing needs the "style" of the machine is not so important. This also suggests, for most manufacturing, functional  upgrades can often be made, or should be made, without requiring major redesign of the machine itself - upgrade the controller on a numerically controlled machine tool, for example. Or perhaps a higher speed spindle on the machine.

There are limits of course. If a new technology for axis motion and control based on a linear motor is introduced for faster, more accurate machine tool motion and positioning then it may not be so simple. But, the machine could be designed to allow such upgrades. This would substantially extend the life of the machine and offer the machine tool builder a chance to keep supplying new technology to the market - just not always wrapped in a brand new machine.

This is being done already with some products, copier machines, for example, or large office printers. Without meaning to disparage anyone's products, I think it is fair to say that no one really buys a copy machine because of the way it looks. But we do expect a certain level of functionality and performance. And components of these machines are designed to be upgraded and swapped as new "engines" for the copier become available. Of course, for this business model, the copier company is leasing you the machine in most cases.

This is another business model for sustainable manufacturing, and includes the concept of extended producer responsibility, that we'll discuss in the future.

What about the middle and right end of the scale where the style is important to the consumer. That is a bit tougher. Trying to sell an automobile to a consumer that lasts a lifetime but can be "upgraded" with newer engines, drive train, brakes, or battery storage may be a bit more challenging.  The idea of upgrading a cell phone as technology advances (these, along with flat screen televisions have about a 6 month life time before new products are introduced) is provocative but hard to envision. Just recycling them has proven a challenge.

Or is it that hard? If you look at the evolution of styles of some of the commercially available hybrid vehicles over the past few years one might say, again not meaning to disparage anyone's products, that "style wise" there has been little change in appearance (body shape, interior layout, etc.) while performance wise there have been many improvements. So, perhaps, for "basic products" that we purchase with more function in mind - machine tools to hybrid vehicles - we may be closer than we think.

And, there is always Louis Vuitton or Tesla Motors (or Jimmy Choo!) for those who are more on the style end of the scale!

Oh, one last thing. Everett and Jones is on the corner of University and San Pablo in Berkeley if you are ever in that part of the Bay area. And, make sure to read the wall!

Moving Green "Upstream"

The last two postings we've been discussing "ubiquitously green" and how to insure that green design and manufacturing incorporates all the stages of the product from extraction of materials through the process of material conversion, to manufacture and assembly of the product, its distribution and delivery, use and eventual  reuse, remanufacture or recycling- that is,  "everywhere at the same time" - the meaning of ubiquitous.

We also discussed means to insure that the cure was better than the disease - return on investment in terms of reduced impact or consumption of the technology wedges we're implementing.

The recent rise in oil and other forms of energy derived from carbon-based fuels has been a big driver in reduced consumption of energy. Increasing scarcity of water and some other materials has driven the point home. The requirements for reducing impacts  haven't always been so obvious.

Earlier this week I had a guest lecturer in my graduate class on Sustainable Manufacturing, Dani Tsuda from the WSP Group (a global consultancy specializing in, among others, environment and energy in industrial sectors). Dani has lectured to my class before and, with his experience in environmental regulations and compliance and prior experience with a major computer manufacturer, offers a rare view into the design of products for global markets with, often, differing materials, impact and other regulations.

He started with a review of the evolution of regulations. As I was listening to this interesting scenario of increasing regulations in response, usually, to some disaster or near disaster I was building a mental image of a rock tossed in a pond with ripples moving out from the center of the impact - meaning the coverage of these regulations expanded over time.

As I discussed some blogs ago when speaking of the "tragedy of the commons," most of these regulations have made our lives substantially better - more sustainable one might say.

In fact, to me the the evolution of these regulations seems to be moving green concepts in design and manufacturing further upstream.

Here's what I mean. Initially there were essentially no regulations - laissez faire. Not good for reasons we know too well (Dani reminded us of Rachael Carson and the battle over the use of DDT.) The focus then shifted to the "end of pipe" solutions - meaning, clean up what comes out of the end of the process -and much effort went into technology to remove unwanted and/or hazardous materials from liquid, solid and gaseous waste from our factories.

The next evolution of regulations then covered manufacturing processes and what materials were used in them to try to catch the nasty stuff at the source before it got into the waste stream - move up the pipe so to speak. This is, of course, much better since you are not creating waste that then needs to be treated.

Following this, spurred by European Union (EU) and others, we saw a move to affect the design of the product and the materials that were specified in the product at the earliest stages of conception. Regulations such as ROHS (Reduction of Hazardous Substances - see www.rohs.eu/) came into force and gave some lists of materials not to be used. Companies ran afoul of these lists at their own peril. An excellent example is Sony and their Play Station fiasco in 2001 although this was "pre-ROHS" and likely due to specific Dutch regulations (http://news.cnet.com/Sony-swaps-PlayStation-One-cables/2100-1040_3-276646.html)

Dani Tsuda reminded us that still, in many cases, the impact of the product in the market in terms of unanticipated problems with materials it contained had usually been identified after some number of complaints or effects were seen in the user community. And then a regulatory reaction would take place if it was determined that a link between the product and the problem was identified.

We now see regulations addressing this moving upstream with such things as REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals - see
http://ecb.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reach/) which essentially requires the manufacturer to essentially prove, in advance, that the product being introduced to the market does not contain any materials, chemicals, etc. that are hazardous.

And, with the recently introduced Ecodesign program, addressing the improvement of the environmental performance of energy-using products by the EU (see http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sustainable-business/sustainable-product-policy/ecodesign/index_en.htm), and insuring harmonization of performance across the EU, the movement of green upstream seems to be complete.

Wikipedia defines ecodesign (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecodesign) as regarding the whole product life cycle should be in an integrated perspective, with representatives from advance development, design, production, marketing, purchasing and project management working together on the design of a further developed or new product so the environmental aspects can to be analysed for every stage of the life cycle. These aspects are defined as:

- Consumption of resources (energy, materials, water or land area)
- Emissions to air, water, and the ground as being relevant for
the environment and human health
- Miscellaneous (e.g. noise and vibration)

I hope that at this point I don't have to pose the rhetorical question "what does this have to do with manufacturing?" (!). You should be able to see that to operate as a business in a global environment where the world is your marketplace you will need to embody the principles of ubiquitously green we've discussed as part of our strategy for green manufacturing.

In the first few blogs some months ago we talked about "why green manufacturing" as an opener. Add this evolution of requirements for operating in  the global marketplace to the list.

Green manufacturing has really moved all the way back upstream.

By the way, I've gotten a few responses to my "assignment" last week to find some examples of companies moving towards "ubiquitously green" and send them to me (use the comment section below or e-mail: dornfeld@berkeley.edu). I'd very much like to hear your suggestions and will put together a list of the more interesting ones in a future blog.

Ubiquitously Green - II

Sub title: Manufacture for Green and Sustainable Design

Last time we presented the concept of green design and manufacturing incorporating all the stages of the product from extraction of materials through the process of material conversion, to manufacture and assembly of the product, its distribution and delivery, use and eventual  reuse, remanufacture or recycling. The principles of green and sustainable manufacturing should be "everywhere at the same time; constantly encountered" - the meaning of ubiquitous. The motivation for this came from Dr. Yoon Lee of Samsung in California in a discussion we had on "consumerization" and green principles.

Part II of this discussion elaborates on this.

To make sustainable manufacturing an eventual reality, by taking small green steps in the design of our process and product along the full life cycle, we need to create the "equilibrium point" between the needs of the consumer and and creating lasting value. This comes from good design - with all the meaning of that word "design" intact along the entire product life cycle. An axiom of this is that there is no value to sustainability unless it delivers the design - meaning the product must function correctly with the required quality and reliability manufactured at the required cost while meeting the constraints of the "triple bottom line" of sustainability - economic, societal and environmental resources.

Ubiquitously green requires a certain fundamental basis for manufacturing at the design, process planning level and resource management level. On top of that foundation must be build an operational capability that incorporates correct choice and use of materials, consumables, minimization of waste in production, and so on. That gets the product or system built. This can be referred to as the "functional" level of our sustainability structure (or principles.)

Now we need to communicate that "value" to the customer and record our progress or impact. This requires two additional levels in our structure, on a more "emotional" level (in terms of perception of value but, importantly, backed up by metrics). These two levels can be characterized as, first, green messaging (or managing the product identity) and communication and, second, green rewards (determined by return on investment and metrics).

A convenient way of representing this sustainability structure is seen in the figure below from Dr. Lee. The pyramid is arranged with the lower foundational principles, applied to infrastructure and operations (the functional levels) providing a base on which the higher level principles, messaging and rewards, are built. It is clear that, applying this all along the life cycle (from materials extraction to end of product life and/or reuse) will insure that the product or process designed is ubiquitously green.

Source: Y. Lee, Samsung  (Note: click on the image to see a larger image for viewing)

What about the details? In earlier postings we've touched on many of these elements - certainly communication and management of consumables or process optimization. We've not yet spoken about identity management (to come in the future). In the August 10th and 24th postings we had a substantial discussion about metrics and options for greening manufacturing. These  options

- Use less material and energy
- Substitute input materials: non-toxic for toxic, renewable for non-renewable
- Reduce unwanted outputs: cleaner production, industrial symbiosis
- Convert outputs to inputs: recycling and all its variants
- Changed structures of ownership and production: product service systems and supply chain structure
(see http://www.ifm.eng.cam.ac.uk/sustainability/seminar/documents/050216lo.pdf for the details)

laid out approaches to the lower two levels of the sustainability pyramid shown above.

But what about the metrics? In the August 25th posting I defined a metric as a type of "measurement used to gauge some quantifiable component" of performance. I then listed some candidate metrics:

o Global warming gases emission (CO2, methane CH4, N2O, CFC’s)
  per capita
  per GDP
  per area/nation

o Recyclability (or percent recycled)

o Reuse of materials

o Energy consumption

o Pollution (air, water, land)

o Ecological footprint - “fair share” - footprint (discussed in an earlier blog)

o Exergy (available energy) or other thermodynamic measures

I proposed that these could be represented in terms of a "return on investment (ROI)" - for example, greenhouse gas return on investment (GROI) or similar concepts of energy payback time , water (or materials, consumables) payback time, carbon footprint, or efficiency improvement (for example, wrt exergy).

Is this reasonable? I think so. Let me give you one example (and I am sure there are others.)

I recently found and read Honda's 2009 Environmental Annual Report (it's online - see http://world.honda.com/environment/ecology/2009report/pdf/2009_report_E_full.pdf).
It reads like a "how to" manual for implementing ubiquitously green design and manufacturing. It covers most of the important elements from product development, through manufacturing and use. Even product recycling is addressed. It does not cover some of the earlier aspects of the full product life cycle (resource extraction, for example) that I can tell. But it is very complete.

It also addresses the "emotional" levels in the sustainability pyramid in terms of identity management and, for sure, metrics and ROI. Figures are given on the last several year's performance in production CO2, waste generation, volatile organic compounds (VOC) per automobile painted, packaging use in transportation, recycling rates, and so on. This would allow computation of a ROI if data on magnitude of the efforts taken to achieve these results were available.

Certainly there is more to be done. But efforts such as those reported by Honda indicate that these principles can be applied in real companies making real products.

Here is your assignment - find some additional examples of companies moving towards "ubiquitously green" and send them to me. I'll put together a list of the more interesting ones in a future blog.

Ubiquitously Green - Part I

Subtitle: Manufacture for Green and Sustainable Design

Mirriam Webster defines ubiquitous as "existing or being everywhere at the same time;  constantly encountered; widespread" and they give the example "a ubiquitous fashion." The adverb ubiquitously means, essentially, in a ubiquitous manner. Another term that could be used here is holistic - meaning incorporating all aspects.

We will explore what this means when it modifies green or sustainable and how it can be a pathway of thinking that can lead to the creation of green and sustainable products by focusing on the manufacturing capabilities - meaning viewing manufacturing technology as an enabler - not just a constraint. And what those green manufacturing technologies will be capable of.

Much of the motivation for this discussion, and the next posting, came from conversations with and a presentation to my graduate class on sustainable manufacturing from Dr. Yoon Lee (Managing Director, Product Innovation Team at Samsung in California). Dr. Lee is a 2000 graduate of Berkeley and did his PhD thesis under my direction. (His views represent his own perspective and not necessarily that of Samsung.) His presentation was titled "Consumerizing Technology and Products - a paradigm shift from DFm to MFd" and covered a range of topics including the influences of sustainable and green design on his work. He titled the slides covering that material as "ubiquitously green" as part of a "green as a way of life" movement.

I like to think of it with respect to our discussion here as "green as a way of manufacturing" movement.

As part of my class this semester I asked the students to develop a definition of sustainability and sustainable manufacturing. We had previously discussed various aspects of this term as it applied to manufacturing. The class then voted on the one they thought was most reasonable. The winner, 40% selected it as their first choice and 25% as their second choice, was:

‘Sustainability considers the past, present and future of products, services and/or economic processes to ensure that future generations enjoy a healthy environment and access to necessary resources. Sustainability is a holistic approach to materials, processes, use, shipping and end of life, extending beyond traditional norms and paradigms. At its best, sustainability inspires innovative business models by redefining economic incentives and consumption patterns.’

Not bad...only a few overused words like "paradigm" but, importantly, it covers the main bases of the concept. They did not use ubiquitous but did use holistic. That's on target. We are now working on how to map this definition onto the manufacturing space to determine specific actions in design and manufacturing that follow. This is the hard part.

Last blog I was picking apart some of the "steps to sustainability" recently published arguing that they offer little help in actuality in an industrial setting. So now it's my turn to try to do better!

Dr. Lee's lecture in my class started by explaining the process by which products are "consumerized" - meaning moving from a "here's some neat technology - use it" from the engineer's perspective to "I need the product to do it like this" from the consumer's perspective. This latter view challenges us as manufacturers to create new products with new capabilities. This is contrary to the perspective that the designer tries her best to design "in the box" created by manufacturing capability. This is part of what the definition of sustainability from my class cited above meant when including the term "redefining consumptive patterns."

It is here where we find the challenges. Perhaps you've heard of the terms "design for manufacturing" (or DfM) and "manufacturing for design" (MfD). This is very commonly used in the semiconductor industry where manufacturing restrictions often limit the capability of designers in chip design. The concept is that, from the perspective of the designer, she should be able to look down the product development and manufacturing pipeline and anticipate problems and challenges to manufacture the design or some particular feature. It's the reverse for the Mfd side. The manufacturing engineer should be able to look up the pipeline and see design features and elements that are going to cause challenges. Or, ideally, see the requirements of design in advance so that the capable manufacturing processes or systems can be in place when the design rattles down the pipe to production.

So, back to ubiquitously green (or sustainable). This term implies a product design and development process through manufacturing that is driven by the objective of "generating meaningful value" to customers. And here we might be so bold as to suggest that we view the environment, or society or business as "our customers." Dr. Lee draws an equivalence between sustainability and delivering lasting value. And the need to "create the equilibrium point" for sustainability between the needs of the consumer. This means that delivering lasting value meets a consumer need.

Now, granted, the company Dr. Lee works for is engaged in manufacturing consumer products - not the machinery that makes them or capital goods, etc. But it is this viewpoint of ubiquitously green or sustainable that will be most valuable in our work to drive green manufacturing.

That is, throughout the stages from extraction of materials through the process of their conversion, to manufacture and assembly of the product, its distribution and delivery, use and eventual  reuse, remanufacture or recycling, the principles of green and sustainable manufacturing should be "everywhere at the same time; constantly encountered."

Part II of this discussion will elaborate on how we do that. Not surprisingly, metrics will be part of the discussion.