Tag Archives: ops

Industrial Ecology, Paradigm Shift or Normal Science?

John R. Ehrenfeld

Ehrenfeld discusses the idea of industrial ecology and breaks down what he sees as two fundamentally different approaches to the science:

Normal Science– This is focused on using industrial ecology to more effectively do what our economy does already- drive growth and profits through eco-efficiency. It is based on metrics and highly focused, concrete studies and principles.

Paradigm Shift– This takes broad principles from industrial ecology, such as the idea that all waste with energy content must be scavenged and used, and fundamentally restructures the economy around them. This is less concrete, and it more about finding and alleviating fundamental frustrations around which the current economic system is based.

Ehrenfeld argues that we need to focus on a paradigm shift before we can get to the normative science. He considers the current goals of industry to be fundamentally unsustainable, and thinks that we need to focus on changing those goals before we can set about the task of accomplishing them effectively.

To do this he uses a metaphor of scientific revolutions, taken from Thomas Khun. Khun proposed that scientific revolutions happen when scientific problems become fundamentally unsolvable within the current broad scientific framework. Scientists have to work fruitlessly on these problems and become frustrated and that frustration has to percolate up to the most established minds in the field in order to create a ripe environment to adopt a new paradigm. Eventually a radically new framework will be proposed which answer the original problem, and will become broadly accepted as a new paradigm.

 Ehrenfeld argues that our economy needs to go through a similar shift, and I am inclined to agree. Our economy need to become more focused on building economically powerful relationships and less focused on building economically powerful entities (be they products, people or corporations.)

Unfortunately, I don’t think that a scientific revolution is a good metaphor to describe this process. Academic politics aside, science is an institution built to pursue understanding. People become frustrated when understanding is not reached, and the culture celebrates accepting good ideas because they are good ideas.

Economies are much hairier. In economies it is much more likely that a bad idea will line up with an individual’s self interest. A paradigm shift in science may disrupt a few professorships, and that relatively small disruption can cause tremendous friction and infighting. A paradigm shift in an economy disrupts large corporations, the livelihoods of millions, and national governments with large armies. Governments are explicitly dedicated to protecting public stability, its complicated system of checks and balances is explicitly designed to make it difficult to enact disruptive changes to the status quo.

If a paradigm shift is a disruption of old ideas, how many of these old ideas are we’re talking about doing away with? If major corporations and governments are built on those ideas, do they have to go too? If so then the “resistance” that the new paradigm faces could take the form of widespread geopolitical instability, even large-scale armed conflict. Such resistance is more than we can simply squint and barrel through, as Ehrenfeld seems to suggest. We must find a happy medium which aggressively shifts to a new paradigm while keeping strategically managing the instability caused by that transition.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

Reading Notes:Sustainable Ops at Xerox

Xerox’s Approach to Sustainability” by Maslennikova & Foley

After I do reading for school I generally try to jot down notes. I’m going to start posting notes to this blog, just so anyone following can see what I’m learning. The kind folks at the Xerox corporation are taking a five-pronged approach to implementing sustainability in their offices:

Product Takeback– When copiers go bad, most of the parts in them are still good. Xerox has started taking back old products and employs about 400 people (green jobs, what!) to dissassemble these copiers, test the components and reinsert them into the assembly process along with virgin parts. This has caused a few issues, many gov’t contracts require “brand new” equiptment, rather than equiptment which meets certain quality standards, though Xerox is working to change this. 

Payback: Over $80 Million

Designing for the Environment– Xerox has started to design their products with the above disassembly process in mind- more snaps and screws, less glue and welding. The result is easier maintenance and happier customers. They are also cutting down on the number of toxic materials in products and designing products to be upgraded and expanded rather than tossed and replaced. 

Waste-Free Packaging– Xerox is phasing out disposable boxes and replacing them with reusable totes. The original plan was for these totes to last for 10 cycles, but it looks like they can last for closer to 25. 

Payback: Customer savigns of $15/unit, Xerox savings of $3.5 million

Waste-Free Plants and Green Offices– Using a variant of it’s Total Quality Management system, Xerox reduced landfill waste from factories by 80% and achieved utility savings of $1.2 million.

Supply Chain Criteria– Xerox puts pressure on their supply chain, largely around hazardous waste issues. The article didn’t go into much detail on this.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized