Recently in corporate initiatives Category

The Friday Oct.30 edition of the Peace Arch News that is distributed in South Surrey and White Rock, British Columbia in Metro Vancouver that borders on the U.S. contained a thought-provoking snippet on wind power by Dr. Roy Strang who covers the environment for the publication.

In it he writes: "Europeans are beginning to find that installing windmills to generate electricity has not led to any significant reduction in CO2 emissions--despite all the early hopes and promises. Because wind power blows only fitfully, backup conventional generators are needed, at full capital costs, for intermittent use."

"Denmark's costs are 15 cents per kilowatt hour while Ontario's cost is six cents. In the U.S., wind-powered generation is subsidized to the tune of $23.34/kwh; compare this to gas at 25 cents, coal at 44 cents, hydro at 67 cents and nuclear at $1.59. The wind itself costs nothing; harnessing it obviously is not free."

The study Dr. Strang appears to be referring to is titled "Wind Energy The Case For Denmark" published in September 2009 by the Center for Politske Studier. Among the findings are:

--"The wind power that is exported from Denmark saves neither fossil fuel consumption nor CO2 emissions in Denmark, where it is all paid for. By necessity, wind power exported to Norway and Sweden supplants largely carbon neutral electricity in the Nordic countries. No coal is used nor are there power-related CO2 emissions in Sweden and Norway."

--"Notwithstanding its many disadvantages wind power's one striking advantage is that, like nuclear, its marginal costs of operation are very small once the capital has been paid. However, unlike nuclear, many ten to fifteen year-old turbines are past their useful life. By contrast, most conventional rotating power plant can enjoy a working life of 40 to 60 years, as evidenced by most power plants in Europe today. This puts into question the strategic, economic and environmental benefits of a power plant that may have to be scrapped, replaced and resubsidized every ten to fifteen years."

Hmmm...do we have another case of well-intentioned greenwashing (with taxpayers' green) a la ethanol on our hands where the net benefits do not exceed the total costs? Wind energy, like solar, cannot effectively be used to shave the most critical need--namely coping with peak-power demands unless you want to invest huge sums in electricity storage schemes like batteries, capacitors, and flywheels; hydro has long used pumped storage that sucks up a lot of land.

Or is this an example where, like solar, wind can be harnessed only in rare and site specific cases in close implementation with other tools such as LEED-designed buildings as in the case of Other World Computing's corporate HQ in Illinois, that, as reported on TMCnet.com has become first U.S. technology manufacturer/distributor to become 100 percent on-site wind powered. OWC also installed the wind power plant and made other energy-saving and environmental-footprint-reducing investments like heat pumps and water conservation at the facility without subsidies.
 

Jeff Wiener's excellent The TelecomBlog.com contains a prescient entry discussing and a pic showing old Nortel phones going into an Avaya box. Prescient in that Avaya is awaiting word from the Canadian government whether it can complete its $915 million purchase of Nortel's enterprise division.

Jeff, who writes TMC's The Canadan Angle blog explains that Avaya gives his firm Digitcom, which is based in Toronto, Ontario "some amazing credits for the old Nortel hardware. We pack it up, call Fedex, and say good-bye to our old faithful friend who finds its way to an e-waste processing plant."

Avaya, and other manufacturers, should get ready to expect to receive more Nortel e-waste now that once-vaunted communications equipment maker is being dismembered at the same time more firms are switching to VoIP, softphones, hosted platforms, and smartphones. 

While Avaya will if it is successful continue to support the Nortel lines, and the sets that are out there are for the most part rugged and well made the writing is on the wall for them. 

After all, what is a better time and reason than now to buy or get the budget approval to switch to that new IP phone that you've always wanted? While the economy is still slack, the prices are reasonable, and the sellers are hungry?

The interesting question from an environmental perspective is how much new junk will be produced per employee with these new technologies compared with the old ones. Smartphones are becoming de facto disposable fashion items. The sophisticated headsets you need with softphones last 2 maybe 3 years in unforgiving mobile or contact center environments. In contrast an AT&T/Lucent/Avaya or Nortel set can last 10 to 20 years. 

Perhaps here's the challenge for Avaya: how about coming up with an "e-set" of reused, reusable, low-impact/low-toxic materials, perhaps partner with a headset maker to devise likewise, and make the money off software hosting and upgrades i.e. "appliance-as-a-service"?  And while it is at it come up with the same kinds of guts for smartphones and in doing so lob one at Ericsson, Nokia, RIM et al? 

IOW keep the box, keep the headset, and change the programming. The combination of low prices and e-friendliness would make it worth while in more ways than one to trade in, and recycle a Nortel or another phone system.

Forget about turning in old gas guzzlers for slightly more efficient vehicular monsters. 

If governments want a 'cash for clunkers' deal that will really have a positive green impact, both environmentally and in keeping money in taxpayers' wallets, they should offer to take over office space leases and buildings--prioritizing on those in car-oriented 'office parks'--in exchange for organizations sending their workforces to home offices.

Governments can then recycle the spaces, working with the owners and real estate firms (and giving them tax breaks to get their buy-in), for other uses: i.e. schools, hospitals, child/eldercare facilities--including tearing them down and cleaning them up to create parks or market gardens. Or they can flip these buildings and land around as brownfield sites, driving property prices so low to make greenfield development i.e. sprawl not attractive. Both means will actually stabilize property values that will benefit landlords of existing properties.

The payoffs from this true cash for clunkers program are plentiful and immediate. There would be fewer cars gouging up expensive 'freeways'  thereby reducing congestion and accidents that cost vast sums in lost productivity and in providing emergency services respectively. Not to mention enabling a much-needed shrinking of healthcare costs by minimizing harmful pollution and communicable disease spread i.e. H1N1 in offices. 

There would then be less need for billion-dollar/years-to-build mass transit systems, and the need to subsidize sprawl with servicing costs. And there would be less risk of destructive blackouts caused by A/C, lights, TVs, and computers suddenly clicking on when commuters get home.

These gains are on top of the environmental benefits. These include less energy used, cleaner air and more open space. And yes, fewer cars that need to be recycled.

 

Donna Fluss, president, DMG Consulting is one of the most common-sense, practical, and passionate contact center experts that I've met and have interacted with in my 14 years covering and working in this space.

In that same vein she has come out in her latest newsletter with this advice on going green for contact centers--but applicable to most other organizations. Here it is, in her words:

"Over the last two years I've seen hundreds of articles about 'going green.' I've been invited to more "green conferences" than I can count, and been asked to suggest 'green KPIs.' Saving the planet by reducing waste and pollution is a great goal, but what does "going green" really mean for contact centers and how much of a difference will it make? 

"Fads come and go, but some have real value, and 'going green"'is one of them, particularly if you think of it as eliminating waste. Real 'greening' benefits the planet as well as the contact center and enterprise. So, here are a few practical suggestions for applying this concept to your contact center:

1. Stop printing unnecessary reports

This will reduce the amount of paper consumed. Curtailing the number of reports used by the contact center is a realistic goal, as it's likely that at least 50 percent are either redundant or not used at all. 

2. Turn off PCs and supervisory terminals that are not being used

Agents and supervisors often leave their PCs on so that they will not have to waste time waiting for their PCs to boot up at the beginning of their shift. This is understandable, as agents are not paid extra for coming in a few minutes early. But if the responsibility is shared and everyone takes a turn coming in early once a month to boot up the computers, you'll save a lot of electricity with no incremental cost. 

3. Make Starbucks or some other good coffee available inside of or close to your contact center

Twenty years ago, many enterprises made coffee available to their staff in a cart that was brought up to each floor so that the employees did not have to waste time (and energy) going to the cafeteria. Over time, coffee carts were eliminated to cut costs, and employees either had to purchase their own coffee maker or travel somewhere - inside or outside of the building - in search of their desired beverage. DMG suggests that enterprises will save time, money and energy and improve agent adherence by restoring the coffee cart concept. 

4. Regulate the temperature in the contact center

It's often hard to regulate the temperature in a large work environment. When it's cold, agents either requisition or bring in heaters; when it's hot, people use fans. It will cost your company less money and use less energy if the heating, ventilating and air conditioning systems are properly regulated. It will also reduce the number of employee complaints submitted to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). 

5. Build contact centers with windows and natural light

I've been told many times that it's not ideal to have windows in contact centers, yet I keep hearing from agents how much they like windows. Natural light reduces the electricity burden for lighting. (Sun glare can be controlled with blinds.) Sunlight has also been proven to make people happier and improve their disposition. This recommendation will save money, improve agent satisfaction, reduce agent churn, and improve the customer experience. 

6. Use work-at-home agents

Moving a percentage of your agents to work-at-home positions will reduce the use of gasoline and the production of greenhouse gasses. It can also increase agent satisfaction and can reduce staff salary expenses. 

"These ideas are all relatively easy to implement and will make your contact center 'greener.' What's great about the 'green movement' is that we can help save the planet, one contact center at a time, while simultaneously reducing costs, improving agent satisfaction and, therefore, the customer experience. It's sometimes hard to resist making fun of fads, but the push to "go green" is worth the commitment.

"I welcome all readers to send me ideas for making contact centers 'greener.' My plan is to collect and share these ideas with you in future newsletters and columns. Please submit suggestions to me at donna.fluss@dmgconsult.com.

 

A new, and telling, report by CDW on energy efficient IT is at first glance is positive, that more firms are successfully doing more to boost energy efficiency, and those that do achieve savings that ultimately translate into fewer dangerous emissions from their operations. 

Yet the report also reveals that efficiency too often takes a back seat to other considerations like purchase price. A point that serves as a stark reminder that unless the costs and subsequent financial pain of pollution--and this blog has outlined them in spades--is felt by the users i.e. those who pollute directly and indirectly no real progress will be made to stabilize let alone clean up the environment.

Here are highlights:

"The survey found that organizations are doing more to improve energy efficiency in IT compared to 2008, and as a result, are realizing significant savings in their energy bills.  However, CDW also found that energy efficiency became less of a consideration in the IT purchase decision year-over-year, highlighting recessionary pressures to reduce equipment costs, even at the expense of greater, longer-term energy savings.   
 
"According to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, energy use in the nation's data centers doubled between 2000 and 2006 and is projected to double again by 2011.  The Energy Efficient IT Report examines where energy efficiency ranks in IT decision-making priorities, along with improvements in IT energy efficiency and remaining challenges.  Additionally, the report identifies top strategies for IT energy reduction employed by organizations that successfully reduced their IT energy bills.  CDW surveyed IT executives in business, Federal, state and local government, and K-12 and higher education.
 
 "'IT executives appear to be caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place," said CDW Vice President Mark Gambill.  "Under extreme budget pressure in a recessionary economy, their No. 1 IT purchasing concern is the current cost of equipment and services, which can put a damper on efforts toward lowering total cost of operations.  While IT executives are trying to do the right thing - buy the best technology with the right capabilities at the best price - some may sacrifice greater long-term savings from reduced energy use by downgrading the importance of energy efficiency in the purchase equation."
 
"That said, CDW found that IT executives who are responsible for the IT energy bill take the longer-term view.  They are twice as likely to place high importance on energy efficiency in the purchasing process as executives who do not own the IT energy bill. 
 
"The 2009 CDW Energy Efficient IT Report revealed that 52 percent of IT professionals whose organizations have energy management initiatives successfully reduced their total IT energy costs, up from 39 percent in 2008.  Respondents reduced energy costs by focusing on energy efficiency in the purchase and management of IT equipment, employing measures including:

* Buying equipment with low-power/low-wattage processors
* Using network-based power management tools
* Using software tools within uninterruptible power supplies (UPS) to monitor power demand and energy use
* Monitoring data centers remotely to keep lights off when employees are not on site
* Managing cable placement to reduce demand on cooling systems
* Implementing server and storage virtualization to reduce the number of servers and storage devices drawing power
 
"CDW's Energy Efficient IT Report found that industry and government are providing clearer information about what constitutes energy efficient IT equipment, enabling IT managers to make more-informed purchase decisions.  Eighty-three percent of respondents said energy efficient products are becoming easier to identify, and almost all said the ENERGY STAR® label is very important for identifying energy-efficient products. 
 
"In fact, although the Federal government's new ENERGY STAR® standard for servers is just three months old, two-thirds of IT executives with server procurement responsibility said they were familiar with the standard, and more than 90 percent of all survey respondents said their next server purchase would likely be an ENERGY STAR®-qualified product.  Further, 92 percent of respondents with access to utility rebates said they have become a significant incentive for investment in energy efficient IT.
 
"Despite reliable product information and real energy savings, just 26 percent of IT executives with procurement responsibility say energy efficiency is a very important consideration when purchasing new equipment - down from 34 percent in 2008.  Yet the potential savings from energy efficient IT is enormous.  In fact, respondents indicated that if they implemented all available energy-saving measures, they could reduce their annual IT energy bill by an estimated 17 percent.

The firms that get the message, and have, says CDW successfully increased IT energy efficiency employ three tactics:

* Ask IT to Manage:  Organizations that asked their IT department to reduce energy costs have seen significant results - 57 percent reduced costs by 1 percent or more vs. just 39 percent of organizations that did not ask IT to make a change

* Assign IT Responsibility:  Sixty percent of organizations in which the IT department is responsible for the amount and cost of energy used in IT operations have taken specific action to reduce energy consumption, compared to 24 percent of organizations without IT accountability

* Incent IT Success:  Organizations in which the IT department is incented to improve IT energy efficiency are more likely to make energy reduction a priority - 58 percent vs. just 30 percent of those who are not incented
 
"'Unfortunately, organizational leadership sometimes overlooks relatively straightforward ways to increase energy efficiency," Gambill said.  "Simply asking the IT department to reduce its energy costs yields hard dollar savings.  And incenting the IT department to reduce energy use - whether with financial, performance or other rewards - helps prioritize energy efficiency efforts.'"  
 
 

Kudos to companies such as Grandstream, MegaPath, and Netsuite for offering and to Rich Tehrani in his blog for raising and promoting what will turn out to be a much more effective 'cash for clunkers' campaign: turning in old legacy PSTN/TDM equipment and obsolete premises-based solutions for IP and where appropriate hosted tools and recycling them to avoid e-waste. 

The cash for clunkers in the comm industry will arguably be more effective in that this one doesn't involve governments, subsidies, and kowtowing to special interests. The Sierra Club has criticized what had started out to be a well-intentioned program into 'support for gas guzzlers'. Money allocated for this program has arguably come at the expense of more efficient mass transit. While there has been stimulus money to build new systems, agencies are being starved to buy vehicles and operating funds to provide services. 

In contrast going to software-based IP and hosted means less goods that have to be manufactured from raw resources that must be extracted and processed, and lowered transportation costs and the consequent environmental consequences at all stages. Smaller computing footprints means less space to heat and cool and land wasted.

NetSuite cites a recent impact study by Greenspace that demonstrated that the average NetSuite customer reduces its electricity bill by $10,000 per year after switching from an on premise system. In aggregate, the NetSuite platform saved NetSuite customers more than $61 million in energy bills in 2008, eliminating the output of nearly 423,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide.

Rich in his blog has announced there is an official cash for phone system clunkers web page which will have links to important references such as ITEXPO West (Sept.1-3 in Los Angeles) "which is the global gathering place for all things IP communications"  and "is the equivalent of an automotive supermarket (yes, communications in this case) where you can meet with all the vendors who save you money by replacing your old equipment. In many cases they can replace the "clunker" with something which is hosted meaning zero CAPEX costs.

Rich mentioned Grandstream's Cash for PSTN clunker program that they implemented with MegaPath. MegaPath is running a promo in which they will offer a $250 dollar credit for VARS or End users who purchase Grandstream's PBX. 

Hosted and IP solutions also make telework more feasible both functionally and costwise, which means fewer air-killing/land-eating/energy-draining commute trips. Fewer and shorter trips results in a longer vehicle lifespan and less need for vehicles. Isn't that assurredly a better way than the current automotive program to reduce environmental damage from cars, trucks, and vans?

Rich pointed out another key benefit from this program: increased ability to save money on conference calls with this new technology. That means you do not have to make as many business trips, thereby avoiding car, plane, bus, and train emissions, and cutting down on the demand for greenspace destroying and must-be-maintained infrastructure that also results in more air, land, and water waste.

"In the auto industry you get a "cash for clunkers" offer once in a lifetime," says Rich. "In the telecom space we do it every day."

See you at ITEXPO West!