Comments

agreed!

I also think that OEM's should be providing clear information on the cost to run a machine for a given period of time. As a technology distributor we see lots of areas for improvement such a higher efficenncy gearing and regen type drives.

Posted by: Shawn Nelson on February 23, 2009

I think it should be "cradle to cradle" not "cradle to grave".

Posted by: Amelia Kirchoff on February 26, 2009

Over fifty years ago there was a book called Value Engineering. You could change the title to Sustainability Today and republish it and make money. Nothing is new. Just the label and from time to time we lose sight of the big picture of doing good business and have to reinvent it using different words. Good business requires a holistic view.
Someone told me that the only true definition of sustainability is profitably harmonizing the proper husbandry of the earth within the fundamental needs of humanity for all time. If you really think about that statement and it would appear to be a very solid definition, then guess what - nobody is doing this, therefore is sustainability a fad?

Posted by: Paul Zepf on February 26, 2009

You hit the nail on the head. You're right. It's hard to get excited about something that we should be doing as a matter of course. Marketing and the media are simply re-packaging good engineering practices and calling them 'green'. Efficient designs, material reduction, and low total cost of ownership have always been good for business. When left to their own devices, good engineers have been doing these things all along.

Posted by: Andy Malcolm on February 26, 2009

Excellent points made by Keith. Sustainability for finance, marketing, and management should be required courses. Engineers get hit over the head with this all the time but the people with the most influence on these decisions have the least knowledge about it.

Posted by: Glenn Whiteside on February 26, 2009

I especially like the need for "Engineering Classes for Non-Engineers".

Posted by: Doug on February 26, 2009

Was liking your comments right up to "cradle to grave" ... should definitely be a "cradle to cradle" mindset.

Posted by: Andrew Telfer on February 26, 2009

I am interested in the two recommendations for "cradle to cradle". Can someone give me an example of how a capital investment would work in that mindset? It's my experience that all investments have an associated lifetime and don't necessarily require or deserve to be reincarnated.

Posted by: Keith Campbell on February 26, 2009

Marketing and financial people should take engineering "sustantentabilitycourses" considering the present and future social and enviromental menaces that humankind will face very soon.

Posted by: Gabriel Valencia on February 26, 2009

Waist not, Want Not. Sounds simple but in today's industry-It's nearly forgotten.

Poor Coding practices, wasteful Energy use and abandon of core Engineering frugality for time to market or "sales" deadlines.

Those who know how always work for those why. There are no Shortcuts or stopgaps however too often results show trade-offs and compromise.

The challenge I see would be lasting and actionable dialog between customers and the actual innovators or Engineers.
Before or in order to establish value before it's "marketed" or "baked".

Ex. This is the gap between VHS and BETA. One technology superior --The lesser adopted globally on basis of OPEN vs. Proprietary. Best doesn't always win in the end.

Is the modes operandi to engineer quality or sell quantity?

Posted by: todd johnston on March 3, 2009

Keith, to address your question of an example of Cradle to Cradle. I believe that the steel industry is a great example of this. Rather then being dumped into a landfill, 70%-80% of raw material content of many steel componants, especially in packaging, is comprised of reclaimed material. This material may see multiple lifetimes in a variety of products and uses. Even Waste-to-Energy is a viable Cradle to Cradle example.

Posted by: Bart Casper on March 17, 2009

Thank you Keith. This was an easy read and good explanation of a new buzz word. I do agree engineers have and continue to practice low total cost solution. The financial branch of the organizations need to catch up. Are similar articles being written in the financial periodicals? We just introduced a new small character printer, MSSC Ultijet. We work with organizations to justify the capital purchase based on Total Cost of Ownership. The plant personnel, maintenance for example, gets it, but it hits a snag when it goes to the Finance Dept. We end up butting heads, and educating them. Why? Many organizations treat and capture expenses vs. capital differently.

Thank you for the article.

Posted by: Craig on March 23, 2009

I agreed.
Financial, commercial and industrial thinking needs to be synchronized to achieve a efficient and sufficient level and grade of real sustainability.
Schools of Business Management and Administration, Schools of Environmental Sciences and Schools of Engineering teach their students different ways of thinking and perceiving the reality at hand. In order to create a truly sustainable economy these different ways of perceiving and thinking need to clearly and effectively understand each other in order to create truly effective sustainable economies. As you wrote: Engineering for non-engineers, etc. There are plenty of buzz about the word 'sustainability' but what this means is not fully comprehended yet. For business it basically ask to design an economy with the ability to sustain it self. But what does this really means? For the environmentalist and naturalist it basically ask to preserve and conserve the natural environment. But what does this really means? For Marketing means to use buzz words and images when promoting brands to produce 'sustainable' market margins and profits. For investors and bankers, the financial thinkers, means to create 'sustainable' profits. What does all this means? A sustainable economy that will preserve and conserve the natural environment that would continue to create and expand market demand and provide the highest possible profits for bankers and investors. This is not an easy project to archived due to the different objectives and thinking of those different groups and minds involved. But, we don't have any other choice but to begin to think in terms of 'sustainability' if we are about to find world peace and political and economic stability. There are closed to 7 billion humans living on Earth today, this will continue to multiply, that will consume a great quantity of all useful natural resources available on Earth. If sustainability is not developed and managed properly and effectively in the 21st Century, humanity could find it self at a point of an unsustainable reality and this could be very chaotic. Let's get to work!

Posted by: Ernest Hartman on March 24, 2009

I'd like some of those packaging engineers to reach age 70-80 and try to open a "simple" package without cussing, getting a finger nail mangled, or cutting oneself with a tool used to try to open a package. Why, for example, does a travel clock or a bottle of nail polish require a complete set of tools before the item can be opened?

I'd sure like your answer to this.

Posted by: Wenonah Comfort on March 24, 2009

Thanks Keith for an interesting article with a veiwpoint clearly supported by many packaging engineers.
I feel that I must respond to Wenonah's query.First a travel clock package is protecting a delicate item and only rquires to be opened once. As the item only needs to be purchased every few years, opening convenience it not really an isssue. A bottle of nail varnish is a different; nail varnish is a highly inflammable liquid where the priority is containment. As closure failure during distribution could lead to fire and loss of life, security must upstage opening convenience. Take a look in your local 'Pound Shop' or 'Two EURO Shop' for a purpose made tool to aid package opening.
I do sympathise with those whose loss of dexterity makes pack opening a serious challenge; as I typed this note my wife brought me a bottle of water that she couldn't open. This time it was the tamper evident seal that was defeating her opening attempt. If the world were filled with 'good' people then the protection of a tamper evident seal would not be needed. Present day Packaging Engineers must prevent harmful leaks and product contamination or damage. If this can be done without impeding opening convenience, this is the natural path to take as it will help customer satisfaction. Regretably there will always be packages that we find hard to open.

Posted by: Rolande Hall on April 18, 2009