Better Than Bitcoin!

There's a new currency insinuating itself into our economy.   Bitcoin is an experimental new digital currency that enables instant payments to anyone, anywhere in the world.  Well, I can do better.

Right now I'm working with a College that has built up an inventory of the routine consumables - paper towels, liquid soap, floor cleaning solvent, and - yes - lots of toilet paper.

They have plans on transferring the responsibility of owning the inventory to their housekeeping contractor's account, and don't want to inventory all their current stock.  What to do?  Here's the proposal: The College will make payment to the contractor in materials as they are used, in lieu of monetary compensation.  Value will be set at "fair market".

Toilet paper is now monetized.  Think of it as large rolls of tear-off bills.  Better than Bitcoin.

Is LEED bloated?

This past week, I have been working furiously to complete and report the mandated hours of continuing education to maintain my LEED AP credentials.

In my readings, course work & exams, I was struck by the extent to which trade organizations have gone to offer alternatives for certification.  A notable one is the relatively new National Green Building Standard,  The Whirlpool Corporation, in some continuing education course material, describes it as "the first ANSI (American National Standards Institute) consensus standard on sustainable Green Building for residential construction. A collaborative effort between the ICC (International Code Council) and NAHB (National Association of Home Builders), the Standard provides the ‘green’ practices that can be incorporated into new homes including multi-family buildings, home remodeling and additions, hotels and motels and the site upon which the green homes are located."

Why?

The NAHB has published a comparison of green home rating systems (http://www.nahbgreen.org/Content/pdf/GreenHomeRatingComparison.pdf).  There's a very telling passage in the Executive Summary of that document.  They state the cost for the first level of compliance in LEED-H (“Certified”) was calculated at roughly three times as much as the NAHB Model Green Building Guidelines or the National Green Building Standard equivalent levels (“Bronze”) overall for this sample chosen.   Other comparisons were similar.

Even the Department of Defense is apparently reconsidering its commitment to LEED, according to a recent blog by The Builders Counsel (http://www.builderscounsel.com/2012/01/no-more-leed-gold-or-platinum-for-department-of-defense-maybe-not/).

Are we moving on?

Be of Good Cheer

Are you annoyed by people who:

• call cabinets “cabinetry”?
• try to show their commitment to sustainable design, referring to “Leeds”?
• say “nucular”, not “nuclear”?
• pronounce “accessible” as “assessable”?
• call columns “columes”?
• call masonry “masonary”?
• say “virtually” when they mean “actually”?
• say “literally” when they mean “figuratively”?
• think “irregardless” is a word?
• spell “fluorescent” as “flourescent”?
• call concrete cement?
• “reveal” their work on TV, without showing all the shortcut slipshod details?
• think “historical” is better than “historic”?
• have a tough “road” to hoe?
• ask ‘You know?”  at each breath?
• ask “You know what I mean?” after each statement?
• ask “You know what I’m sayin’?” after each explanation?
• say “Hey”, not “Hi” or “Hello”?
• think most things in life are “awesome”?
• capitalize their profession, but not others?

Well, then you too are a curmudgeon.  My current resolution is to, perhaps, be more forgiving.  Some people find me annoying.

Happy Holidays!

Excuse Me

  OR

Which one seems more like a belch?

So here I am, a consultant selling services to improve the management of your organization.  I even use the phrase "enterprise management" in the About Me byline of this blog.  It was as close as I was willing to get to the currently faddish acronym.

Wikipedia claims the Gartner group coined the term in 1990.  Actually, that's somewhat too long ago to fairly call it a fad.  I suspect, however, that it won't stick forever.  How much do we talk about TQM these days?

The name game is brought on us by those who want to have some way of characterizing what we do.  I have had marketing consultants tell me that I must reduce the description of my practice to no more than seven words.  This remains an on-going challenge.  I have yet to see that the reduction is warranted, but I'm working on it.

How's this: WWAD?  What would Arch do?  Ask me, and I'm going to tell you.  Assuming I think I know, of course.  I'll try to speak in plain english.  It's what I do.

Human Capital?

Human Capital Management Trends and Innovations

Yuk.  If you're like me, you get lots of newsletters and email from industry vendors.  One recent one simply rubbed me the wrong way.  The lead was the text at the top here.


The email was a promo for a Webinar, sponsored by none other than ADP, the company in the payroll services business.  In fairness to ADP, they didn't invent the phrase.  Apparently (according to Wikipedia, at least) use of the term dates back to the mid 1950's.


Sure, there are definitions that explain what it's supposed to mean.  Warning - they don't all quite concur.  Regardless, in my view there are two annoyances: It falls into the trap of being less than plain-spoken; and, more importantly, it neuters the very real value of people.  Yes, humans are people.


It's bad enough that my scheduling program, has me categorize living beings as 'Resources'.  I want, for the most part, to stay connected to my coworkers.  Why use such management mumbo-jumbo?

Women

Women Managers, to be more precise.

Yesterday, I was was cleaning out some old files; and came across the handbook I wrote for novice architectural project managers.  The copyright date is older than I care to admit, and I thought it might be interesting to see how badly the concepts might apply to current circumstances.

To my surprise, a high percentage holds up pretty well.  Upon reflection, this possibly has to do with the fact that good management has much to do with appropriate personnel relationships, and not so much about the current 'tools of the trade'.  A few sentences, however, jumped off the page as utterly inappropriate.  I referred to project managers as "men".

The context left little wiggle room for interpreting that I intended to be even-handed in the acknowledgement of women in the profession.  I'll blame two factors: 1. That was then (meaning that women were less prevalent), and 2. That was me then (i.e., less aware).

Bias is a bad thing.  I think, I may be a better person now.  Are you?