[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics
The Baldridge model uses raters, either internal or external. That raises
all kinds of classical problems regarding rater systems, including
inter-rater reliability. It takes extensive work to raise inter-rater
reliability -- otherwise it is a "I know it when I see it" type of judgment.
Low inter-rater reliability is a real problem in many systems -- grading
essays is an example. The more complex the system being evaluated by a
rating system, the more reliability is a problem for the system.
Note that measurement professionals know that the validity of any
measurement can never exceed its reliability -- the latter being a measure
of reproducibility using independent raters who do not have information
about the other raters ratings.
Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D., J.D.
San Antonio, TX 78231
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert Pojasek" <email@example.com>
To: <firstname.lastname@example.org>; <email@example.com>
Sent: Friday, March 17, 2000 8:33 PM
Subject: Re: Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics
> The Baldrige Model does NOT ASSUME the product. It looks at all your
> systems and rates them according to "best in class." One of those systems
> is the design of new products and processes. You say you "cannot conceive
> of a means of measuring such changes across different industries," but
> is what the Baldrige model does - and does so quite effectively. I'll
> you a copy of a paper that appears in this current issue of ENVIRONMENTAL
> QUALITY MANAGEMENT (a John Wiley & Sons journal).
> BOB Pojasek
> At 09:07 PM 3/16/00 -0600, you wrote:
> >My concern is that all of the discussion has assumed the product. Real
> >pollution prevention may involve changing the product mix -- that is,
> >choosing to make a different product. Borden did this in the early
> >eliminating heavy metals from their flexographic inks -- providing a
> >functionally equivalent product that polluted less in their manufacturing
> >it and in their customers use of it.
> >Sometimes, however, changing the product may require more lead time and
> >effort in working with the clients to find alternatives. Most of the
> >examples of product change have occurred for reasons other than the
> >pollution prevention value of the change. Examples include electronic
> >cameras -- no development chemicals to manage -- most important in the
> >medical industry, and the disappearance of most of the auto industry
> >chrome -- for design and weight reasons, rather than to not have to use
> >chrome plating process.
> >As one who has studied measurement as a research methodologist and
> >epistemologist [earlier career :-)], I cannot conceive of a means of
> >measuring such changes across different industries. Yet, that is where
> >ultimate in pollution prevention must be achieved -- changing what we buy
> >and consume so that we cause the creation of less pollution.
> >Ralph E. Cooper, Ph.D., J.D.
> >14139 Woodstream
> >San Antonio, TX 78231
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> >To: "Jenna Latt" <LATTJ@state.mi.us>; <email@example.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, March 16, 2000 7:33 PM
> >Subject: Re: Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics
> >> There's a big difference between measuring environmental performance
> >> measuring environmental progress.
> >> I've compared the environmental performance of chemical plants that
> >> similar product slates by looking at potency-weighted releases on a per
> >> of production basis. What we saw was that there are vast differences
> >> one facility to the next not only in how much waste was generated on a
> >> per-unit-of-production basis but in how the wastes were managed. Some
> >> facilities were clearly ahead of others on the pollution prevention
> >> This is very useful and interesting information, and comparing a
> >> other like facilities in this manner is an excellent way to evaluate
> >> environmental *performance*. As time goes on, it's becoming clear that
> >> environmental performance is linked to shareholder value and I expect
> >> of these types of studies to be done. However, this is a really
> >> and expensive type of analysis, requiring a knowledge of what compounds
> >> emitted during the production of each product, what production
> >> are, etc.
> >> Even within the chemical industry, it would be misleading to adopt any
> >> indicator of production (sales, man-hours, cost-of-production,
> >> pounds-of-production, etc.) across the board and measure environmental
> >> performance using that single metric. Using a single metric across
> >> industries would be even less meaningful.
> >> Evaluating environmental *progress* for a facility is simpler. For
> >> potency-weighted releases, summed by facility over time and adjusted
> >> production, give a quantitative measure of environmental progress and
> >> fairly easy to develop. However, a facility can make a tremendous
> >> environmental progress and still not have good environmental
> >> and that distinction must be made.
> >> ===============================
> >> Kirsten Sinclair Rosselot, P.E.
> >> Process Profiles
> >> P.O. Box 8264
> >> Calabasas, CA 91372-8264
> >> firstname.lastname@example.org
> >> http://home.netcom.com/~rosselot
> >> (818) 878-0454
> >> ===============================
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: Jenna Latt <LATTJ@state.mi.us>
> >> To: <email@example.com>
> >> Sent: Wednesday, March 15, 2000 8:35 AM
> >> Subject: Measuring pollution prevention performance: metrics
> >> > I was wondering whether anyone have information on corporate or state
> >> programs that are measuring pollution prevention progress or
> >> Usually this is referred to as environmental performance indicators or
> >> metrics and goes beyond the traditional SARA TRI data reporting,
> >> released" or emissions reporting. For example, measurements used can be
> >> "amount of constituent reduced per amount of product produced," or some
> >> other similar metrics. I am particularly interested in what state
> >> are doing in this area.
> >> >
> >> > Are there any websites or reports (specifically report names) I can
> >> referred to? I have already checked www.epa.gov and the EPA P2 site but
> >> may have missed a particular report.
> >> >
> >> > Thanks,
> >> >
> >> > Jenna Latt
> >> > Pollution Prevention Section
> >> > Environmental Assistance Division
> >> > Michigan Dept. of Environmental Quality
> >> >
> Dr. Robert B. Pojasek
> Pojasek & Associates
> P.O. Box 1333
> E. Arlington, MA 02474-0071
> (781) 641-2422
> (617) 788-0288 (FAX)