Continuing with the recap started in my previous post, the engagement shifted into execution mode. A true myriad of tasks ranging from data gathering, reformatting and uploading to project planning for GRI reporting, to overall engagement management. In hindsight, the data component was not particularly difficult to contend with once we understood the connection between consumption types, units of measure, emission factors, and output unit type. The approach was generally the same for each consumption type or activity. Ensuring alignment between what units the data was available in, what the relevant emission factor appropriate for that consumption and unit type, and output units desired was a challenging aspect. Obtaining current and accurate emission factors for the breadth of consumptions was a challenge. They do not simply exist in an easily accessible manner. One has to do a fair amount to research them and then once deemed correct figure out how to properly represent that factor for the consumption units of interest. Again, it would seem this would be straightforward but proved otherwise. Should anyone know of a comprehensive, complete, international source for major consumption types for the many suppliers involved, along with their representation across different units, by all means, please let us know!
A major milestone was the development of the initial carbon footprint; seeing the overall impact as well as the component contributors and their respective share. This is a key milestone as it becomes the starting point for the development of different strategies and initiatives to mitigate one's impact. It also is the point where considerable discussion takes place as clients develop a better understanding of what their environmental impacts are and where they are coming from. As might be expected, there were a few surprises and unexpected results. This in itself is a great learning experience as the concept of Scope (1, 2, and 3) becomes clearer as it applies to a client's environment.
Another key observation at this point: seeing where one's business strategy is not likely to be kind to ones sustainability efforts. As an example, in the financial services and high tech sectors one of the biggest sources of impact are driven by employee travel. Companies striving to grow and expand on an international basis are likely to travel more, leading to a bigger environmental impact. This observation, in turn, has the effect of honing ones mitigation efforts into those areas of business operation where business strategy CAN be augmented while also driving down environmental impacts.
As we worked with the footprint we also continued to transfer knowledge pertaining to GRI reporting. We provided the overall framework and details on how to apply it. A key conclusion here pertains to how the well structured and organized GRI framework can deceive users. Once one dives into specific key performance indicators (KPIs) and understands what is needed to report on them as part of ones deliverable, it becomes more apparent as to how one needs to go about crafting and driving ones sustainability program efforts. KPIs require specific types of data in most cases. This means someone needs to be gathering this data, organizing it, and synthesizing it in a manner that maps to the selected KPIs. What one may have thought was a "good example to include" in a GRI report ends up only being something referenced anecdotally because the required metrics do not exist.
Certainly, this is where a sophisticated Environmental and Energy Management (EEM) system comes in handy. One can gather data and work with it to get to a desired GRI but the process is significantly simplified through these robust tools. The intelligence built into these systems, and their continued evolution along this dimension, goes a long way toward organizing and coordinating data management and subsequent reporting related activities.
More to come. Part Three will continue with this thread starting with the creation of strategies and identification of related mitigating initiatives.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Friday, February 5, 2010
Connecting the Dots - Working the Big Picture - Part One
Over the last many months we've been engaged in a fairly comprehensive, multi-dimensional, sustainability project. Serving in the capacity of overall Engagement Manger I've overseen everything from strategic planning through various data entry activities. This has been a terrific learning experience. It's also been very rewarding from the perspective of making things happen, getting good things done, and delivering a lot of value to our client. Without delving into the specifics of where this was done or who it was for, it's an experience that's led to many key insights. And as my heading states, a great opportunity to connect many of the dots inherent in this domain. I anticipate this may take more than one installment, thus the reference to Part One.
Adding interest to the mix, this engagement leveraged the products and services of two of our partner firms. These are rapidly evolving software vendors in the environmental and energy management (EEM) arena and data center power optimization domain. With the client engagement focused on organizing, uploading, and understanding energy consumption data as well as a deeper dive into the power consumption profile of their data centers, these were ideal vendors to partner with. And, indeed, they played significant roles in the connection of major dots.
The project engagement served as what I believe will be the typical sustainability project initiative. Rather than any one vendor/service provider satisfying the entire breadth of a given client's needs and objectives, solutions will be cobbled together; leveraging the unique offerings different providers bring to the table. This is certainly an important realization for anyone involved, or planning to be involved, in this arena. Providers of sustainability consulting services certainly can bring value. Software providers certainly have their place in the bigger picture. But neither alone is sufficient to adequately address the bigger picture. Nor is it safe to assume that either party can hope to do their own part well and rely on the client to address the other.
A key first step was understanding the client, their current capabilities and activities, and goals and objectives for the future. As might be expected, some of this is obtained easily while other aspects were developed jointly. Perhaps most important in the early stages is truly understanding the client's big picture context and the world they operate within. Without this fundamental understanding the odds of being successful are truly slim and none. Personally, I would place a bigger wager on "none".
Having a good understanding of the client and "their world" led to the identification of needs and opportunities. Once fleshed out and prioritized, determining what the appropriate solutions to meet these needs and make the most of opportunities was the next step. One might note that a considerable amount of work has been done to this point yet no solution providers have been involved. I can't emphasize enough the need to get this first major part done properly and resist the temptation to prematurely engage with, and introduce, other solution providers. Time and a place for that.
Shaping ones thinking about the solutions to consider and pursue, having a good idea and definition of "the ends" in mind is invaluable. Gaining client input and acceptance of this vision essentially defines where the goal posts are and what success looks like. It's at this point in the game that one goes looking for the appropriate partners and solution sets to engage. In our recent engagement that led to the selection of the two partners referenced earlier. Certainly, getting to this point had it's share of challenges. As you might suspect, that was just the beginning.
Partners selected and assurances obtained that identified goals and objectives would be attained, the effort shifted to active engagement of the partners and integration of their respective solutions into the client environment. Among other considerations, this is where the world of software as a service (SaaS) and the more traditional, installed on client premises solution became interesting. Perhaps challenging is a better word. The SaaS EEM was implemented and ready for our use in very short order. The data center optimization solution, by it's nature needing to be executed on the client's data center environment, raised considerable attention and concern. The net result was a need to take a plan that called for several streams of activity being done concurrently to one that was more serial in nature. On the plus side, this served as another important entry to my "notes to self" log. It also enabled us to more effectively handle the other challenges that lay ahead.
In my next post I'll provide the next installment of this engagement recap, activities performed and lessons learned. Stay tuned.
Adding interest to the mix, this engagement leveraged the products and services of two of our partner firms. These are rapidly evolving software vendors in the environmental and energy management (EEM) arena and data center power optimization domain. With the client engagement focused on organizing, uploading, and understanding energy consumption data as well as a deeper dive into the power consumption profile of their data centers, these were ideal vendors to partner with. And, indeed, they played significant roles in the connection of major dots.
The project engagement served as what I believe will be the typical sustainability project initiative. Rather than any one vendor/service provider satisfying the entire breadth of a given client's needs and objectives, solutions will be cobbled together; leveraging the unique offerings different providers bring to the table. This is certainly an important realization for anyone involved, or planning to be involved, in this arena. Providers of sustainability consulting services certainly can bring value. Software providers certainly have their place in the bigger picture. But neither alone is sufficient to adequately address the bigger picture. Nor is it safe to assume that either party can hope to do their own part well and rely on the client to address the other.
A key first step was understanding the client, their current capabilities and activities, and goals and objectives for the future. As might be expected, some of this is obtained easily while other aspects were developed jointly. Perhaps most important in the early stages is truly understanding the client's big picture context and the world they operate within. Without this fundamental understanding the odds of being successful are truly slim and none. Personally, I would place a bigger wager on "none".
Having a good understanding of the client and "their world" led to the identification of needs and opportunities. Once fleshed out and prioritized, determining what the appropriate solutions to meet these needs and make the most of opportunities was the next step. One might note that a considerable amount of work has been done to this point yet no solution providers have been involved. I can't emphasize enough the need to get this first major part done properly and resist the temptation to prematurely engage with, and introduce, other solution providers. Time and a place for that.
Shaping ones thinking about the solutions to consider and pursue, having a good idea and definition of "the ends" in mind is invaluable. Gaining client input and acceptance of this vision essentially defines where the goal posts are and what success looks like. It's at this point in the game that one goes looking for the appropriate partners and solution sets to engage. In our recent engagement that led to the selection of the two partners referenced earlier. Certainly, getting to this point had it's share of challenges. As you might suspect, that was just the beginning.
Partners selected and assurances obtained that identified goals and objectives would be attained, the effort shifted to active engagement of the partners and integration of their respective solutions into the client environment. Among other considerations, this is where the world of software as a service (SaaS) and the more traditional, installed on client premises solution became interesting. Perhaps challenging is a better word. The SaaS EEM was implemented and ready for our use in very short order. The data center optimization solution, by it's nature needing to be executed on the client's data center environment, raised considerable attention and concern. The net result was a need to take a plan that called for several streams of activity being done concurrently to one that was more serial in nature. On the plus side, this served as another important entry to my "notes to self" log. It also enabled us to more effectively handle the other challenges that lay ahead.
In my next post I'll provide the next installment of this engagement recap, activities performed and lessons learned. Stay tuned.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)