A review of corporate sustainability collaboration software

I was just reading Gartner's Magic Quadrant for Social Software research report which is a must read for anyone on a green team considering rolling out a collaboration platform around sustainability. If you haven't read any of Gartner's "Magic Quadrant" reports, they are essentially 20+ page reviews of vendors in a particular space where on page 1 they plot all the players on a 2-by-2 of their choosing. On the right is the quadrant they chose for social software. It basically shows 30-odd vendors on two dimensions: completeness of vision and ability to execute.

The first thing you will notice is that all the vendors are clustered in the bottom left (i.e. incomplete vision and low ability to execute). Great, that was helpful, Gartner! But seriously, at least you have some semblance of order and you can pick the "least worst" on the dimension of your interest.

If you're on a green team and are trying to select a collaboration platform for sustainability, reading this report is necessary but not sufficient. I say that because there are two additional dimensions that you must consider which are not addressed in the Gartner review: open versus closed and general versus focused (on sustainability).

Open versus closed. A closed platform is one where participation is restricted to only employees of your firm and open means anyone can participate. Most firms when thinking about sustainability take a broad view of their footprint and that requires collaborating with employees as well as suppliers and distributors, and sometimes even customers, among others. That means a solution like SharePoint which often is deployed with LDAP integration (i.e. single sign-on with existing network credentials) is an incomplete solution because it pretty much limits participation to employees. On the other hand, most companies don't want an entirely open network where their internal deliberations are open for any and all to scrutinize. A completely open platform quickly becomes swamped in sales pitches, job inquiries, preaching and evangelism--some helpful but in aggregate overwhelming. If you don't believe me, check out one of the 1000+ green forums on LinkedIN.

General versus focused (on sustainability). A generic collaboration platform has a lot of benefits including scalability, compatibility with existing infrastructure, familiarity by the users, cost, etc. But general platforms lack the unique knowledge and vocabulary of sustainability focused collaboration platforms. The benefit of sustainability focused platforms is they come with a taxonomy for describing the issues companies face as well as content and a network. The downside of most of these platforms is they are smaller, have a shorter track record and on a per user basis are likely more expensive.

Above and beyond the important criteria identified by Gartner in their research, these are the two dimensions that we considered heavily in designing Viridus. Our solution is what we call the "gated community" concept.

Essentially what we have done is created a gated community with Viridus where we manage the security at the front gate. Individual members of the community don't have to worry about who gets in because they know that the policy is only corporate sustainability professionals responsible for their company's direct/indirect footprint are allowed in. That means no vendors, consultants, press, regulators and NGOs. Within Viridus, companies can own a private home (the equivalent concept would be a private company group within Viridus). Private company groups allow companies and their green teams to collaborate with each other, but also to interact with other professionals inside of the "gated community" of Viridus.

What happens if a company wants to invite a vendor or consultant to participate? Well, as a "home owner" in the gated community, you just have to leave your guest's name with security at the front gate and they will be allowed in (although they will only have access to your house).

We think it's a great model for individual corporate sustainability professionals but also for companies, their green teams and their employees. We are still working out details of pricing for private company groups but it will be priced as an ASP. If you are interested in learning more, please contact us.

Green Business Cards That Work

I was reading this article on the LinkedIN blog guest written by the CEO of Moo.com and was reminded of my own experience creating business cards for Viridus last year.

The picture to the right shows a couple of my Viridus business cards along with an old standard business card from Softbank Capital. The first thing you notice is the size. Our cards are about 40% of the size of a standard business card. My thinking on this was that I wanted to use as little material as possible and I always felt that so much of the information on a business card was a waste (how often do you really use a FAX number?). The size of the card was designed so that we reduced the amount of waste when cutting the paper stock we chose. I did do something "unnecessary" by rounding the corners because it makes the cards look better, they last longer and I figured whether the corners were cut or not that paper was going to be consumed anyway.

Of course we chose soy inks having been educated on their benefits compared to regular ink. The only impact of that was we had to remove a light shadow from behind the logo that was too fine for the ink to pick up well.

Lastly, on the paper choice, we went with a 100% recycled paper which has a slight texture but nothing noticable in the bad way. I briefly considered some paper that was "offset with wind energy" but at 2X the cost seemed unnecessary.

The end result is a great looking card with a compelling story line behind it. And that's really what a business card is about--creating a memorable event. Which, by the way, I've handed out a couple hundred of these cards and not once have I done so without getting a comment. I tell a joke now that, "I originally did it because it was the green thing to do, but now I just say I couldn't afford the rest of the card." Nevermind that these cards cost more than standard ones...

The last thing I'll say about green business cards is that there is likely to be an arms race and I've already seen it. A few months ago I met Tom Szaky, CEO of TerraCycle, on some panel and his "business card" was a rubber stamp which turned out to be totally ineffectual since the only paper I had was the conference brochure which was too shiny for the stamp to stick. That said, it was a memorable moment.

Clean Tech Investing

Last week I attended a conference on clean technology / energy investing here in Boston.  Like anything with a sustainability angle these days it was packed to the house with standing room only; although this time it seemed to be more an audience of practitioners as opposed to job seekers.

The two-hour session saw two VCs and an Analyst give their views on the past, present and future of the market.  The speaker I found most interesting was Jim Matheson, a partner at Flagship Ventures.  It is worth reading his background.  He's been doing clean tech investing for the past 9 or so years after having graduated from Harvard Business School.  Prior to that he was a Naval Aviator having been an instructor and adversary pilot at Top Gun (cue the sound track for the movie).  After listening to Jim's speech, two things are eminently clear:

       (1) Substantial height is not a requirement to be a Naval Aviator; and

       (2) Jim is a really smart guy who's been around the block on clean tech.

Jim addressed a number of points, including that there are huge opportunities in the clean tech/energy space because much of the existing processes and technologies are decades (if not more) old and are not designed for today's requirements.  But all was not rosy.  Jim pointed out that one of the biggest challenges today is that those with experience in energy and clean tech come out of utilities or other pseudo-government companies that 9 times out of 10 do not transplant well to startups.  He also talked about how the time horizons of VC funds (10 year funds) are not ideally suited to the time frames of clean tech / energy (sometimes 20-40 years).

As Jim was wrapping up he listed off a bunch of problems that he thought were worth solving (translations, things that he is interested in owning if they are successful) and I thought I would share that list:

       (1) How to make, transport and measure H2O

       (2) What to do about all the CO2 we produce

       (3) How to create more distributed electricity

       (4) How to store energy at large scale cost effectively

       (5) How to build and support electric vehicles

       (6) How to design and build sustainable products

       (7) How to use IT to manage energy usage

       (8) How to make the grid smarter, consumers wiser

       (9) How to use land more efficiently

       (10) What to do about all the waste we create

I've always been impressed most with VCs who publicly talk about the things they want to invest in (as opposed to what they have invested in).  And while this list isn't overly specific, it's such a rarity that it's worth publishing here.

I don't know Jim personally, but were I raising money for a clean tech / energy business I'd add him to the short list of folks worth talking to.

"How to Increase Vehicle Fuel Efficiency" is the Wrong Question

I saw this story on Viridus News about how a group has organized around the goal of doubling vehicle fuel mileage by the year 2050 (the group is called 50by50) and has some significant backers.

The only problem with this, as I see it, is that it too narrowly defines the problem. 50by50 has a goal to double fuel efficiency of *new* *cars*. That leaves out old non-cars. According to Wikipedia, there are roughly 251 million registered vehicles in the US. Of those, 135 million are classified as "cars" plus there are an additional 99 million "other 2 axle, 4 tire vehicles" which presumably are SUVs and pickup trucks (which are exempt from a lot of the "car" rules). Further, each year there are sold about 8 million new "cars" or about 3% of the total fleet. That means that a doubling of fuel efficiency will have a small but measurable impact on overall vehicle fuel consumption.

So the right question is, "how can we reduce vehicle fuel consumption?" Asked that way, there are many things we can do that will have a bigger impact in a time frame much shorter than 40 years. Here are some examples (off the top of my head):

(1) GPS navigation. Pass a regulation that every new vehicle sold in the US must have a GPS navigation system installed in it. Make it similar to the regulation requiring catalytic converters and air bags. Most car makers already have this as an option on their vehicles so the cost to implement this change would be minimal. Aslo create a $300 tax credit for purchase of retrofit GPS systems that would effectively make these "free" for consumers. The net result would be that a good portion of the 10-20% of all miles driven in the us (the "lost" miles) would be eliminated. Over night consumption of gasoline and diesel would drop considerably.

(2) Road construction. Amend the stimulus bill so that the $100-odd billion dollars earmarked for highway construction must take into account vehicle efficiency. Little attention is paid in designing roads and bridges to vehicle efficiency. These projects are prioritized and designed for cost, safety, longevity, etc. but not for vehicle efficiency. Road surfaces, placement, lights, traffic management, etc. all have an impact on the fuel consumed by automobiles so while we're spending all this money let's design efficiency in.

(3) Tires. Pass a law that puts an tax on tires based upon a certification test on efficiency. Obama took heat during the campaign last year for saying that proper inflation of tires is something everyone can do to fight the high cost of gasoline. In fact, if everyone properly inflated their tires it would save 2-3% of total vehicle fuel consumption, a huge number. Also, many tires are incredibly inefficient. Those wide, low profile flashy tires consume a lot of fuel. It's fine if you want them, we should just place a big tax on them.

As with most problems relating to sustainability, my advice is to define the problem in its broadest, most fundamental terms and then look for solutions that solve it. Increasing fuel efficiency of new cars is part of the solution, but in all likelihood a small part.

Green Doesn't Have To Be More Expensive

A stereotype has become associated with "green" that, while it is probably better quality, it's also more expensive.  I'm not sure how that stereotype got started, but like all stereotypes it paints with a broad brush and is ineffective at explaining reality.  And certainly as times change this myth has not kept up with reality.

Let me give you just two examples at the consumer level to illustrate the point:

• Water.  In 2004 (the latest year I could readily find figures), every man, woman and child in the US spent, on average, $217 on bottled water.  The vast majority of the US water supply is perfectly healthy to drink and in those areas where it is not, a simple water filter would suffice.  The "green" thing to do is to drink tap water from reusable plastic containers and it would save the average family more than they can expect to get from the recently passed stimulus bill.
  
  
• Heating.  As I recently heard someone elequently explain on the radio, "every house needs a sweater and a wind breaker."  The sweater is insulation to keep the heat in / cold out and the wind breaker is an air-tight seal.  Most houses are not very well sealed.  But small changes can make a big impact.  For example, installing $10 weather strips on the bottoms of exterior doors will have a payback of less than a month during a New England winter, for example.
  
  

The same thing is true for businesses as for consumers, probably even more so since companies have the ability to enforce self discipline that individuals need to struggle for.  The absolute lowest hanging fruit are changes to processes that are more efficient.  At almost no cost, some process changes can have a big impact.  For example, when UPS made a process change to reduce (or almost eliminate) left hand turns, they saved over 3 million gallons of fuel per year and reduced the need for 1,000 delivery trucks. Or, one of my favorites, is when a green builder made a process change which she enforced on all her contractors which was that, "if you make a whole in the building, you are responsible for sealing it."  Anyone who's been around construction knows that there are many subcontractors working (plumbers, electricians, masons, etc.) each doing "their job."  This small change to process results in dramatically better sealed buildings.