Elemental

Fascinating article in the Economist on demographics and population this week.  Happily, according to the article, we aren’t heading for a Malthusian catastrophe (collective sigh of relief).  The article goes on to explain:

Mankind appropriates about a quarter of what is known as the net primary production of the Earth (this is the plant tissue created by photosynthesis)—a lot, but hardly near the point of exhaustion. The price of raw materials reflects their scarcity and, despite recent rises, commodity prices have fallen sharply in real terms during the past century. By that measure, raw materials have become more abundant, not scarcer. Certainly, the impact that people have on the climate is a problem; but the solution lies in consuming less fossil fuel, not in manipulating population levels.

Being the Economist, the central premise of the argument is that “the price of raw materials reflects their scarcity”.  Not being an economist myself, I’m in no position to counter-argue, but I’m sure there’s an argument to be made on the grounds of elasticity . If anyone can clarify my muddled thinking on this, please feel free to jump in and correct me.

The article goes on to reflect on population and the effect of working practices on it.  Very interesting.

mel starrs Uncategorized Economics

For anyone who was avidly addicted to my job alerts column (on the right), I’m afraid I’ve deleted it.  The job market for BREEAM is currently at saturation – if you are BREEAM qualified, there are tens, if not hundreds of opportunities listed on other websites.  And any exciting opportunities tend to come about by happenstance, rather than answering an ad.

I’m keeping the Google Reader ‘In the News’ feed for the meantime, although it isn’t quite satisfactory.  I’d like to see it knitted into my main feed, similar to what del.icio.us can offer.  Any bright ideas on this, drop me a line.

Oh, and if you think it’s quiet around here, it’s mainly due to my new Facebook addiction.  If you’re on Facebook and want to be my ‘friend’ (cringe) search for Mel Starrs – I’m the only one that exists.  It’s nice to be unique.

mel starrs Uncategorized Google, Mel Starrs, Sustainability

Guy Kawasaki (one of my must reads) has an interview with Tim Berry about Business Plans.  It’s a corker and I’d love to quote it all but I’ll stick to a few of my favourites:

On who should read the plan:

…The (busiess) plan is by you and for you and if tracking it, reviewing it, managing and executing it aren’t important to you, then you don’t understood planning. Planning isn’t about the document; it’s about controlling your destiny, running your business better, setting goals and tracking progress, and keeping your eyes on the horizon while not tripping over potholes in front of you. If you’re not going to read it regularly, then don’t ask anybody else to.

On what are important qualities in a plan:

…cash flow. Growth spurts in a company are good things, meaning more sales, and presumably more profits, but unplanned growth can suddenly sucks up liquidity and in the worst cases kill the company. Growth without prior planning can be as fun a hard kick in the stomach.

Common mistakes:

…You don’t postpone life while you’re developing a plan; you’re always developing the plan. In the meantime, “Get going.”

…The absolute worst business plans ever, anywhere, are those plans in a drawer somewhere. If you’re not keeping it alive, it’s not planning; it’s just a plan. It’s history. It’s of no business value.

Go read it, and then apply it to your business plan (and please don’t tell me it’s stuck in a drawer)…

mel starrs Uncategorized Guy Kawasaki, Management, Tim Berry

The guys at The Future of Work have a book coming out soon on Corporate Agility.  Much of the stuff in this article is the kind of thing that fascinates me, and part of the reason why I did the MBA – to understand how companies work (or don’t).  The book sounds interesting:

In essence we set out to understand the current state of individual-organizational relationships and what employees were looking for in a job – with a particular focus on the workplace, or as we have always preferred to call it, the “work environment,” mindful of the fact that the physical place is only one dimension of the context in which work gets done. And as important as place is in defining work, we were convinced that the tools companies provide to their staff and the human resource management practices they put in place are equally important factors in workforce productivity, to say nothing of how people feel about their work and their employers…

…Prisoners of their outdated business practices and their assumptions about how work gets done, most organizations found themselves losing ground to competitors who had not even been on the map a decade before. They became victims, rather than beneficiaries, of advances in information technology. And at a time when the attraction and retention of qualified, engaged employees had become an even more critical factor in a business’s success or failure, they found themselves out of touch with a workforce that had undergone a dizzying transformation in attitudes, abilities, and ambitions…

…in dynamic and uncertain business environments, more decentralized organizational decision-making and flatter organizational structures were essential for survival. In contrast, organizations in stable, predictable environments where efficiency still mattered actually performed far better with top-down, bureaucratic, command-and-control management style.

This pretty much matches with what Charles Handy says in many of his books.  And if you have an interest in doing an MBA, I’d recommend reading Handy’s Understanding Organisations as a primer. I liked his style of writing very much (probably becuase he’s British rather than American – very few British authors in this field…)

mel starrs Uncategorized Charles Handy, information technology, Management

CIBSE’s website has had a facelift.  But still no RSS feeds for the news page or the discussion forum. sigh. 

mel starrs Uncategorized CIBSE

Among my (many) past employers, I have 2 stints at Babtie, both before Jacobs took over.  Reading this in the Times, it could easily be about any of the larger engineering firms in the UK.  There seems to be a certain size in a company’s life when common sense fails to prevail over corporate bureaucracy:

It (Jacobs Babtie) has told staff at its 36 offices across Britain that they must drive or use public transport. They can use bicycles only if they are working away from roads, such as on canal towpaths.

In an e-mail to all employees, a copy of which has been obtained by The Times, the company’s health and safety manager says: “It’s patently obvious that if you are struck by a wayward vehicle when you are on a bicycle or motorbike you are going to be more severely affected than if you were in a car. The reason for this policy is to protect our employees from other vehicles on the road.

There will be a few limited exceptions when employees will be permitted to travel by bicycle, but that would be when that mode of transport is required to undertake the job, for example, carrying out surveys along river banks and tow paths.”

The ban on cycling on company business has infuriated several staff, who have been cycling without any serious safety incidents for years. They believe the ban is partly the result of conditions in the company’s insurance policy. The e-mail acknowledges that staff are unhappy about the ban and admits it “could be construed as being at odds with our environmental policy and the requirement to be environmentally responsible”.

It also acknowledges the concerns among employees that the company will lose important contracts because the ban “will not please our environmentally friendly clients”.

Sadly, it’s not an April Fool nor a Dilbert cartoon.

mel starrs Uncategorized Britain, Engineering, insurance policy, News, the Times, United Kingdom

I’ve been reading Aber Environment and Ethics for a while now. He/She (sorry – no idea of the identity behind the author) has what sounds like a sorry tale regarding BREEAM and university buildings here.  It’s heartening to find that there are some students who are taking this issue and exposing the story – something those who actually involved (i.e. on the design team or within the university staff) could not do.

What I would say is that BREEAM ratings of ‘Very Good’ or ‘Excellent’ should be built into any cost plan as early as possible – it’s clear this was not a proiority in this instance.

Blogging – citizen journalism in action!

mel starrs Uncategorized BREEAM, Green Building

I’m going to have to change all my rss feeds from TheyWorkForYou.com.  Except for Yvette who now has a seat in parliament “when required”, which sounds like when they need someone to point and shout at (or maybe they’re being kind and relieving her of the tedium of having to attend all the time). 

The question is will any of them write a blog, like David Miliband has been?

mel starrs Uncategorized David Miliband, Hazel, Hilary, News, Ruth, Yvette