Often times enterprise software systems come in “modules” that offer functionality to serve multiple business groups, departments, or processes. Examples include:

• Requirements
• Contracts
• Safety
• Objectives
• Risk
• Procurement

Often times in the sales process, multiple modules will be offered together in a package deal, to increase value and bring more users into the best practices provided by an enterprise software system.

Makes sense, right?

Of course! Only buy the modules that you need. And expand into different modules once you’re ready (and once the department, group, or business function it serves is ready).

But a very prudent question to ask is how are these modules connected? How is data shared between Contracts and Risk? How can we roll data up across all of our modules to support our corporate goals and objective tracking?

It’s a pretty logical to assume that it would be straight forward and easy to make modules talk to each other. However, often times modules don’t talk to each other at all, and require quite a bit of work to connect- even though they are from the same platform, company, and system.

If you’re looking into an enterprise system with multiple modules, consider these questions:

1. Do the modules share a single database– if yes, this should make it easier for the modules to “talk” to each other and share data
2. Are there any integrations required to share data between modules– if so, there could be additional software costs (adapters, servers, etc) and service costs (technical consulting to install the modules)
3. If an integration is required, how is it set up- are there any pre-built adapters to make the integration easier? Is data shared through XML/batch files or is the integration real time? What data fields can be exposed?

Asking these questions can save you a lot of time, money, and headaches.

As a solution consultant and sales engineer within the enterprise software space, I am constantly asked by clients one key question:

• Can I create [XYZ] report?

This is such a rational, legitimate question! After all, what’s the point of an enterprise software platform that collects and aggregates data if you can’t generate the reports you need?

Hopefully the answer to this question is “Yes.” Well developed, well thought out systems can facilitate the aggregation, roll ups, and slices and dices of data in multiple ways with ease. Want to compare how department A is performing against department B? How about instead of comparing department A, we compare Program 1 to Program 2? What about rolling up transactional data in more than one vertical across the company?

The possibilities really are endless in the way clients want to report on their data. And they have every right to! However it can put some enterprise software systems in a bind if their data structures aren’t carefully designed.

This is a result of using excel spreadsheets before the implementation of a enterprise system, where data structures aren’t enforced. Referencing cells in formulas is quite a manual process, however it provides users with a lot of flexibility to facilitate aggregations and calculations. However this can get pretty complicated for many enterprise systems to replicate. It becomes almost impossible for a system with poor data structures.

Here are some questions to ask when investigating data structures of enterprise software systems: 

Are reports configurable or do they require custom development?

As discussed in my previous post, you want a tool that is configurable, not customizable. This will save buckets of money on development costs and allow non-technical users to operate and administer your system. If reports aren’t configurable and require custom development, reporting will be a nightmare.

Does the vendor have a reporting team? 

There will always be some reporting requirements that stretch any system. However if the vendor has an entire reporting team dedicated to running SQL scripts to pull client reports, that may be an indication that reporting may not be as simple and straight forward as previously thought.

Does the system have multiple types of database objects? Can they be related?

Well designed enterprise software systems have multiple database objects at varying levels of detail. These systems will also allow users to associate multiple object types together. Sometimes reports will require associating object A with object C, while others will require associations of object B with object C. If an enterprise software has only a couple of data objects that don’t talk to each other, creating reports could be impossible with a custom SQL script.

Can transactional data be tagged with multiple categories?

Tagging transactional data with multiple categories allows users to tell the system where they want the data to go. If an enterprise software system does not allow you to tag data with more than one transaction, roll ups across departments, programs, regions, and more will be extremely difficult.

After working with numerous enterprise softwares over the years, I am commonly asked by clients to distinguish the difference between software configuration and customization. Both have their challenges and benefits:

Configuration means an end user (someone who is not a developer) can build, alter, and to an extent customize an enterprise software to match a client’s needs and business processes. Enterprise softwares that allow for configuration usually have a somewhat easy to use back end interface that an administrator, consultant or designer can access to alter settings as needed. Most modern enterprise softwares are built to be completely configurable. Some might argue that configuration limits a customer’s options during an implementation. For some software platforms this is true- however if the software has a solid, well developed architecture the system can be configured to match any client’s needs.

Customization usually involves developers that implement or build code for an enterprise software. Customization can be expensive as it requires constant maintenance and hiring highly skilled workers. However, sometimes customization allows a client to implement a system that fits their requirements exactly as needed.

In the sustainability space, I am sure many of you have heard quite a bit of chatter about Life Cycle Assessment, also known as the practice of modeling a product’s environmental impacts across it’s entire life span.

This practice is important for a number of reasons- reducing environmental impacts, trimming down the size of your Scope 3 carbon portfolio, etc. However, at the end of the day, it all comes down to product marketing.

Corporations are catching on to this highly technical, highly advanced practice because when conducted correctly, LCA’s are the basis for EPD’s- also known as Environmental Product Declarations. I won’t go into a ton of detail (please contact me if you have additional questions), but EPD’s allow you to make environmental marketing claims about your product compared to another.

If an EPD of a smartphone was created, reviewed, and accepted by a verification body, it could allow Apple to say that their iPhone is more green that a certain Android phone, and visa versa.

Along with the branding, nutritional facts, labeling, and (especially) pricing, sustainability metrics will be another way for a consumer to choose between products. And EPD’s, supported by Life Cycle Assessment, and Life Cycle Assessment software tools and data, will be the catalyst for these sustainability metrics. But as I described above, practicing LCA with the correct approach can be challenging.

Additionally, making marketing claims against a competitor can be risky for any brand. Claims needs to have substantial evidence and be validated with extensive data and research. Nobody likes a lawsuit!

This is why having reliable, accurate, and updated data is absolutely crucial when conducting LCA studies with the objective of making a marketing claim.

And in terms of LCA data- the data that powers these studies- there is a lot of questionable data!

While I won’t identify the ones to think you should avoid, here are the scientifically backed LCA databases one should consider:

• EcoInvent
• US LCI
• GaBi Databases (Disclosure: I work for PE INTERNATIONAL, the providers of this data)
• ELCD

Have questions? Feel free to contact me!

Please keep in my mind that these opinions are strictly my own!

Jobseekers often ask me about the key skills one needs to obtain to be successful in corporate sustainability. Throughout the years I have learned a lot about the various tricks of the trade, and I believe there are three skill sets every sustainability professional should know:

1. Understand highly technical practices such as Life Cycle Assessment from the product side, as well as the methods for quantifying corporate sustainability indicators from the operational side. Organizations can’t measure actual progress without quantitative practices such as these, and they are often overlooked and seen as overly difficult (especially within sustainability).

2. Additionally, learn the various software solutions available for sustainability management. Tools make quantifications of impacts automated and much easier to manage. Having a basic understanding of how these systems work is going to help immensely when a client or supervisor wants to implement one of these systems at your organization.

3. Understand how to design and implement higher level corporate sustainability initiatives, such as stakeholder engagements, sustainability strategy development, and sustainability management systems. These skills are immensely important for any candidate as:

• A stakeholder assessment identifies what sustainability aspects are important to an organization, and whom it is important to (internal and external stakeholders)
• A strategy incorporates the identified sustainability aspects into their vision and develops it into a blueprint for the organization to follow for sustainability success
• A sustainability management system is the engine that continually drives the organization toward achieving their sustainability goals and reducing risk

To me, number 3 has been the most important. It has allowed me to provide my clients with unified, cohesive solutions that have increased brand recognition, decreased cost, increased sales, and reduced risk for their organization.

You’ll notice that there aren’t any certifications, accreditation’s, or other professional sustainability “labels” mentioned above; while I think they can somewhat beneficial, they come and go and if everyone has them, how does that differentiate you? To me, it doesn’t, and the facets I have listed above can apply to more than just sustainability.

Think about how you can apply all three of these facets to your job to help your organization succeed.

Love it? Hate it? Let me know!

Today I read a great article on the Harvard Business Review about making sustainability profitable. The article highlights a study by the World Economic Forum that investigated international companies considered to be sustainability “champions” in the developing world. Some highlights from the article:

• Companies implementing sustainability practices have “above average” growth rates and profit margins
• Sustainability efforts have been the most successful in resource constrained economies
• Efforts that involve more sustainable operations can require more long term investment- but those investments have payed for themselves many times over

Business benefits like these are often overlooked when sustainability initiatives are taken into consideration. When speaking with clients that are skeptical of the business value, or that need help selling the value proposition to top management, I try to emphasize the common business benefits related to sustainability (along with some estimated dollar amounts where applicable):

• Reduced material costs- Less energy costs. Less water use. Less waste disposal costs. Less is more these days, and it is hard to deny that reducing the inputs into your product and operational systems will keep more dollars in your pocket. Easy argument to make because these are realized costs for every company.
  
• Reduced risk– Managing risk can prevent compliance issues and fines. It can also stop supply chain shortages that would prevent a company from producing more of their products. This is often overlooked because it is preventative, but it is an important consideration- and a consideration most sustainability champions have already taken care of.
• Enhanced branding- Being considered “green” is just one facet of growing a strong brand. Kraft, 3M, Toyota, Siemens, Johnson & Johnson, Honda, Volkswagen, Cisco, and HP are just a few of the high performing companies within the Fortune 500 that have deep and successful sustainability programs that have bolstered their images as top international companies. Harder to put a actual dollar amount on- unless the company is being acquired or purchased!
• Top line revenue growth- Phillips just reported that roughly half of their revenues in 2012 were attributable to green products. $15 billion in revenue is an incredibly easy argument to make, and if companies aren’t utilizing Life Cycle Assessment, green product design standards, EPD’s or other systems that improve the environmental performance of their products, they will continue to sell less of their products to high performing competitors as consumer demand for more sustainable products increases.

These are just the business values- there are other reasons, like “doing the right thing,” or the whole preserving-the-environment-for-future-generations idea (crazy, right?!). But when we are talking about business, the reality is that we need to speak in the language of money.

These opinions are my own. Love it? Hate it? Let me know!