[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE:training question



Hi Everybody,

Burt asks a good question - as usual.

The points made about positive aspects of vendor participation need to be
weighed against the negatives.  We have seen vendor control of information
getting to companies. Always a prefered source, vendors are frequently
interested in selling their products and services rather than offering a
balanced message.  Our director of the Surface Cleaning Lab, supporting
aqueous cleaning to replace problematic solvents, has decried the
transformation of recent conferences in her field.  There is little science
in what is presented at panels, only vendor sponsored messages. 

At the same time, supply chain management suggests a two-way street.  If
companies trust vendors, are talking to vendors, do business with vendors,
then perhaps the whole construct can be encouraged upscale. We have found
independent TUR Planners quite able to provide valuable content in
workshops without blatently marketing.  The same is true of ISO 14000
service providers.  Certainly a problem is perceived favoritism from the
government in provinding such a platform.

I look forward to other comments.


>X-Authentication-Warning: superior.great-lakes.net: majordom set sender to
owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net using -f
>X-Sender: bhamner@pop.mindspring.com
>Date:	Wed, 04 Aug 1999 22:30:05 -0700
>To:	p2tech@great-lakes.net
>From:	Burton Hamner <bhamner@mindspring.com>
>Subject: training question
>Sender: owner-p2tech@great-lakes.net
>Reply-To: Burton Hamner <bhamner@mindspring.com>
>List-Name: P2Tech
>X-Loop: P2Tech
>
>Hi all.  A recent P2 training event leads to this question:
>
>Considering that P2 programs have reputations to protect, is it appropriate
>to have vendors with specific technical solutions participate in an
>industry-specific P2 course?
>
>I ask because I heard that the recent event sponsor refused to allow such
>vendor participation because it would be "too commercial", although there
>was a person ready to help who was not going to do a company sales pitch
>but a presentation on the specific applications of specific hardware.  As a
>result, the participants left with some ideas about basic technologies but
>no idea about who sells them, "inside" tips about how they work, what it is
>like to install and use them, what they cost, etc.
>
>How can this tension between "commercialism" and the real need for specific
>solutions be resolved in training in P2 training?  My own feeling is that
>P2 training should be "pure" as advertised, but that an OPTIONAL vendor
>presentation the next day, or after lunch, would be ok and useful as long
>as it was clearly advertised as complementary but not necessary.
>
>I hope this stimulates some good discussion.  The US govt and some states
>are sending people all over the place doing P2 training, and the local
>vendors of appropriate tech are asking to participate, and now often have
>the door shut on them.  This does not seem to be very helpful all around.
>How to balance these interests?  Any thoughts?
>
>Burt Hamner
>********************************************************************
>Burton Hamner
>President, Hamner and Associates LLC
>Adjunct Professor, Asian Institute of Management
>4343 4th Avenue NW, Seattle Washington USA 91807
>Tel/fax: 206-789-5499 (call before sending a fax)
>Email:  bhamner@mindspring.com
>Web:  The Sustainable Business Webspace, www.mindspring.com/~bhamner
>********************************************************************
>

Janet Clark <clarkjan@turi.org>
Technology Transfer Manager
MA Toxics Use Reduction Institute
University of Massachusetts
One University Ave.
Lowell, MA  01854-2866
Tel 978-934-3346, Fax 978-934-3050
**********************************
http://www.turi.org  
http://www.turi.org/P2GEMS
http://cleaning.org
**********************************