sustainability master.pdf
Download this file
Download this file
I recently got caught in a frustrating email fail situation which has reinforced my thinking that emails, having been invented in the 60's hence a dated concept, prone to failure, attack, cloning and phishing are not suitable today for a variety of communication issues, and that education in use of emails is lacking.
A recent email from LMU promoting a Women in Construction event was, apparently and unfortunately rejected by a recipient and resent to the 300 plus on the distribution list, which of course commenced a seemingly endless loop of resending. This repeated sending continued even when the original account had been deleted from LMU servers.
This of course caused great annoyance even anger from recipients, who I guess like myself received hundreds of copies of the email. The frustration resulted in a good number replying to the whole list complaining about the situation, shouting in CAPITALS, requesting the emails be stopped, one even suggesting the author had damage to women in construction movement. These reply to all's were of course rejected by the recipient failed server and spammed out to the whole list again repeatedly, causing more frustration, more reply to all responses and more spam flooding into in boxes.
Amazingly many replied to all suggesting that we shouldn't reply to all! Many suggested incorrect email responses (block, report as spam, complain to LMU, set up auto-redirect to sender etc)
In addition many of those reply-to-alls may have been reported as spammers by a good number of recipients, where in fact they were not at fault. It is possible that these are now permanently blocked by colleagues/contacts as spammers
I understand LMU contacted many on the email cc list by telephone to explain the situation.
The numbers:
Each email as it embedded a picture was approx 200kb, The original was sent to approx. 300 recipients. One send therefore = 60,000kb. Repeated resent some 1500 times. Add in the reply to all spams = say 50 at 200kb to 300 recipients @ say 25 times before they were blocked as spam. Add in local machine and server backups and the numbers grow exponentially very quickly, necessitating more server space, more energy, more cooling requirements more cost, increasing the carbon footprint of emails.
I would estimate I have deleted something in excess of 400 emails, but still today some 5 days later, they trickle through.
I was please to hear yesterday that through all this people have signed up for the event!
Twitter and social media
Interestingly a twitter back channel chat took place with those affected, discussing how do you reach a list of 300 people to tell them not to reply to all on the email without sending to all, or without using email.
At the same time, and perhaps ironically, we sent out invites for the forthcoming Lancashire best practice club event: Working with Technology. The event details were posted onto eventbrite with the link e-mailed to club members and communicated via twitter. Six tweets (original and retweets) had a reach of 2,000. The eventbrite site had some 300 views that day with 25 joining up (the number has grown since). The invite link was also sent via email to club members.
Somehow this approach seemed cleaner, easier and fresher. Members and delegates have commented on the ease of use of eventbrite for previous events, and, linked with a survey monkey feedback afterwards, drastically reduces admin burden
Lessons:
Emails are not always the best event communication route
A mixture of traditional (email) and social media (e.g. Eventbrite, Twitter) routes has greater potential reach and success
Emails are too prone to fail and attack
We are too quick to blame individuals for email 'system' fail, often replying in Capitals (i.e. shouting)
There is a lack of eduction in how to use email or how to deal with emails in fail / attack situations.
There is a need for social media awareness and education in use of alternatives to email
This blog has reported on numerous occasions (eg here and here) on the need to measure and improve carbon emissions from construction activities separately from that of the building itself or the facility in use. And the need for an easy, simple to use tool.
As noted many of the available applications for calculating carbons were linked dubiously to carbon offsetting schemes. Of note for use in construction were the Google Carbon tool (but not construction specific enough) and the Environment Agency tool (but is proving to be too detailed and cumbersome for most projects)
Measuring and improving carbons on site is increasingly important as more and more projects seek higher standards to BREEAM and Code for Sustainable Homes (and soon Non Dom Buildings). One recent project set ‘damages’ for the contractor not achieving the ‘management points’ (for waste, CO2 and considerate constructor standard) for CSH at £40k per point. (See the CSH Technical Manual for more on this)
Recently at EcoBuild Paul Morrell, Construction Tsar commented that focus on carbon emissions should be a number one site priority as it is measurable and addresses other areas of ‘waste’ in the industry
And yet the majority of contracts just do not know their project carbon footprint, whether its close to 1tonne or over 100tonne. We do not have a feel for the magnitude of emissions, or indeed what 1kg of CO2 actually looks like.
So it is good news to see the release of ConstructCO2, developed through Evolution-ip, by construction people for construction use.
ConstructCO2 is a simple carbon calculator based on the premise of keeping it simple and easy to use on site. It makes use of existing site approaches for data collection (induction sheets, daily log-ins, plant sheets, utility invoices etc). Carbon emissions through transport are calculated through use of google mapping API .
Construction (people) travel miles are recorded for management, operatives and visitors. (With a dispersed project management team you will be surprised at the carbon footprint of a project site meeting and probably think of alternative arrangements) Material transport miles are derived from delivery notes or goods received sheets.
Where the power of ConstructCO2 lies however is in its reporting. Construction carbons can be measured in terms of co2/£project value, co2/dwelling, c02/m2, co2/bed or other, enabling benchmarking with other projects and generically through KPI’s such as those from Construction Excellence.
But simply knowing the project footprint, the construction company’s total project footprint, and where the biggest areas for carbon emission are enables action for real improvement.
ConstructCO2 is currently being used by a number of different projects in what I guess would be called a beta stage. Current projects include a large new build hotel project, a small industrial refurb project, school extension and an architect’s office.
Currently the use of ConstructCO2 as a tool is free, with a (currently optional) fee based support and training package to help contractors understand carbon issues, carbon standards requirements, measuring, benchmarking and improving carbon footprints. So it makes sense to take the opportunity now, measure and understand the carbon footprint of one of your projects. At the moment sign up is through request via email contacts on the ConstructCO2 front page
Future developments include the option for live energy feeds from site power meters to ConstructCO2 and live exporting from ConstructCO2 to Google and Pachube for example.
ConstructCO2 is on twitter at @constructco2 and has a ning forum in development for discussion and benchmarking of project carbon issues.
Note: As an associate with Evolution-ip, I have been involved in the ConstructCO2 concept development and testing. Evolution-IP is a be2camp partner, presenting at and sponsoring be2camp un-conference events.
A blog post entitled Eco-Week: From the Cradle to the Grave hit my twitter inbox this morning, based upon the green things occuring at EcoBuild in London. The blog post from Rob Cameron is very good, making the point that we need to go back to source with our eco-zeal. (Something I am chasing: product suppliers who can track their footprint back to raw material sources, manufacture and transport. Requests to EcoBuild, have at the moment drawn a blank)
But having read Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough & Michael Braungart some time ago, I now cringe at seeing the expression cradle to grave used in any building ‘eco’ context. Maybe it is because we have the cradle to grave mentality that we are in such a wasteful, enviro, sustaina-babble mess.
We make things, we use things, we still throw things away. Our current approaches to waste management and sustainability is just to slow down the process before the things we make end up in landfill – through reusing and recycling .
Needing to focus on the cradle not the grave
The premise of Cradle to Cradle (at least my interpretation) is to rethink the way we make things, so that after use things already have a new, hopefully higher value, purpose as the cradle to something new.
It draws the parallel with nature where there is no waste, but as nature decomposes it becomes the food for the next iteration of ‘life’
We need to focus on designing, engineering and managing out waste so that remnents of a construction process or project or of demolition becomes the food for the next evolution of buildings or facilities.
In fact there is a taxonomy issue at play here. We refer to all ‘that stuff’ left over after construction or demolition as waste. Lets really go for zero waste and get rid of the word waste in this context and go for 100% food, 100% rebuild
Further, related links:
test
I wonder how this compares with the Displayed Energy Certificates at these universities?
Read the full story from the Guardian @jessshepherd1 here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/feb/16/condition-university-buildings-hefce
| The Facilities Management market will continue to see a dramatic shift toward multi-service provision in 2010, according to a new market report from MTW Research, with clients following ‘flight to price’ procurement strategies to reduce costs. Themes include: Facilities Management market increasingly characterised by closer relationships between suppliers and contractors, as greater efficiencies and lower procurement costs are sought. Supplier improvement programmes typically include audits in relation to CRM, sustainable procurement and may even include a ‘best practice’ policy to which suppliers are expected to adhere. Just over 65% of FM contractors viewed as having either an ‘excellent’ or ‘good’ credit rating, but 11% of the companies active in the Facilities Management market are viewed as being at imminent risk of failure. www.marketresearchreports.co.uk |