Burton Hamner

Copyright 1999, Hamner and Associates LLC

Training programs in Cleaner Production and Pollution Prevention (C2/P2) are being regularly offered by government, non-profit and business programs around the world. These programs are usually designed to give participants a basic understanding of C2/P2 concepts, and often have some industry-specific technology orientation. Experienced trainers have noted that many participants, especially engineers and technicians, are eager to try out C2/P2 technologies and ask, "Where do I get this particular technology to solve this particular problem?"

Unfortunately, it appears that most C2/P2 training programs are not well prepared to answer this question. The most common approach used is to refer participants to the commercial service of the country or agency that is hosting the workshop. However, this is a very limited response that does not give participants an understanding of the complex and sophisticated network of technology sourcing, financing and delivery systems. In effect, many C2/P2 training programs fall short; they get industry interested in specific solutions, but don't tell them who to call or how to find vendors.

It appears that, in many cases, this has been the result of policy decisions made by sponsoring programs or even line managers. In the author's experience, many sponsors are concerned about "commercializing" the message of C2/P2 - they fear that participants will not attend or will be cynical about the motives of a training program that includes information from vendors or that steers them to one main information source (often with national biases).

While these fears may have been justified in a few cases, there is an evident consensus among experienced C2/P2 trainers that vendors of appropriate technologies can and should be a valuable addition to training programs. If vendors are carefully selected, coached on the right approaches to use, and monitored during their delivery, they provide the following benefits:

• Extensive knowledge about specific technical C2/P2 solutions for specific industries;
• Objective overviews of the pros and cons of technology alternatives (not competing vendors!)
• Experience with installing, operating, and repairing technologies;
• Ability to help trainees right away with progress towards a technical C2/P2 solution.

In partnership with other trainers, vendors can also tell participants how to use the vast technology transfer programs and networks that are available. A little training on this can provide tremendous long-term benefits to smaller enterprises that cannot conduct technology research and development on their own.

Experience with Vendors in C2/P2 Training

To determine what the "experts" say about the use of vendors in C2/P2 training, the author polled an email discussion group, P2Tech, whose members represent hundreds of pollution prevention technical assistance programs and projects. The question posed and the answers received follow. The answers have been given minor editing to keep them focused.

Original Question

Subject: training question From: Burton Hamner <bhamner@mindspring.com> Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999 Hi all. A recent P2 training event leads to this question: Considering that P2 programs have reputations to protect, is it appropriate to have vendors with specific technical solutions participate in an industry-specific P2 course? I ask because I heard that the recent event sponsor refused to allow such vendor participation because it would be "too commercial", although there was a person ready to help who was not going to do a company sales pitch but a presentation on the specific applications of specific hardware. As a result, the participants left with some ideas about basic technologies but no idea about who sells them, "inside" tips about how they work, what it is like to install and use them, what they cost, etc. How can this tension between "commercialism" and the real need for specific solutions be resolved in training in P2 training? My own feeling is that P2 training should be "pure" as advertised, but that an OPTIONAL vendor presentation the next day, or after lunch, would be ok and useful as long as it was clearly advertised as complementary but not necessary. I hope this stimulates some good discussion. The US govt. and some states are sending people all over the place doing P2 training and the local vendors of appropriate tech are asking to participate, and now often have the door shut on them. This does not seem to be very helpful all around. How to balance these interests? Any thoughts?

Responses

From: Judy Jakobsen <swsrs001@lilrc.org>

I have run spray-painting workshops with vendors as speakers and found them to be an invaluable resource. They spoke about specific technical use of equipment and application techniques in spray painting such as transfer efficiency and were not hawking their product. They also provided a lot of valuable technical literature to assist customers on painting techniques, safety concerns etc. that didn't hawk their product. I have no problem with vendors participating. I think you need to know from references (talking to other people) how the vendor is as a speaker and you make it clear they are not to hawk their product during their talk. Also if various solutions from different vendors are presented, I don't see why this would be a problem. Otherwise how is industry to know what options are out there? I am certainly not an expert in the industry and rely on tapping into other experts. There is a different rapport between vendors and clients that may be more beneficial since there is still industry fear of P2 Programs since some are regulatory or perceived as regulatory. I also made a point of getting literature from numerous vendors to have out for attendees to go away with knowing where they could get products and other information. I feel strongly it is a mistake not to tap into vendors as a technical resource. I also feel the vendors can be a valuable resource to help get information out to their clients on your P2 Program by providing them with program brochures when they visit with companies -- so it can be a two way street.

Judy Jakobsen SCWA P2 Program

From: "Francke, Dale H." <frncked@pwfl.com>

Your question is a good one. The P2 Coalition of Palm Beach County (FL) has put on numerous P2 events/workshops for various industry/business groups over the last four years. During these events vendors who deal in the area of business being discussed were normally present as exhibitors. Access to them was prior to the event, during any breaks, and after the event. This put in their perspective as a commercial entity and talking with them was voluntary for everyone. When a vendor, one exhibiting or not, had a technical representative (not just a sales person) who was an expert or very knowledgeable in the area of P2 which their product was used, they have also been asked to speak but on a subject matter, not a product line. This has been very successful, as technical experts have easily eliminated the product side for the technical side of the discussions. I think you need to be sure that the speaker has the technical background, training, experience so that they can talk on a subject. This eliminates the need for them to be product specific in order to have something to discuss. While most sales reps have a good understanding about their product and how it works within a specific area of P2, they may or may not understand the total area of P2 their product represents. Our experience (P2 Coalition) has been that technically competent vendor reps can speak to a group in their area of competence without having to use specific product references. Specifics about products can successfully be provided by company exhibits to be viewed before, during, and after the event.

Dale H. Francke, Pratt & Whitney. M/S 717-03, P.O. Box 109600 W. Palm Beach, FL 33410-9600

e-mail: frncked@pwfl.com 561.796.3733 FAX 561.796.2787

From: Mike Heaney <Mike_Heaney@p2pays.org>

Vendor participation is always a question of balance. Fortunately, most vendors know that the quickest way to lose an audience is for their talk to become an infomercial. Often vendors are some of the most knowledgeable experts in their field. Their practical experience is valuable to the audience. And they also have the strongest motivation to deliver a good presentation because building credibility is good business. Too often public sector training shuns vendors based on unfounded fears of seeming like an endorsement. I helped organize a one-day workshop on coatings P2 for the local chapter of AIChE and for organizations like that using vendors for some presentations is a financial necessity. It is important, though, to use vendors whom you can trust.

Mike Heaney NC Division of Pollution Prevention & Environmental Assistance

919-715-6511 wrrc.p2pays.org

From: "Hillenbrand, Steve" <sjhillenbrand@tva.gov>

If the training is very basic and elementary, the in-depth understanding that vendors can bring to a training session is probably overkill. However.... My training team, P&PS, has used vendors many times to provide credibility to in-depth P2 workshops and have almost always been very pleased with the results. We provide the P2 philosophy and an introduction to the technology which is a shell around the kernel of information that the vendors provide. If your audience is industry personnel, they tend to trust the knowledge of vendors and are very familiar with how to separate hype from fact. They do not tend to trust the "industrial" knowledge (read experience) of "government folk" or "those university people". Remember that vendors are in the business to sell a product. Their offer to help provides them exposure, name recognition, and sometimes contacts. A few vendors do not realize that this is enough and try to sell their product also. But in my experience these are very few.

Steve Hillenbrand, Industrial Waste Reduction Engineer, Process & Prevention Services, EESE Environmental Research and Services River System Operations and Environment, TVA WT 9B-K (423) 632-8489 (432) 632-3616 (Fax) Internet address: sjhillenbrand@tva.gov TVA P&PS HomePage: www.tva.gov/orgs/iwr

From: "Robert Ludwig" <RLudwig@dtsc.ca.gov>

The best source of credibility for equipment and processes can be found from the businesses that have used the equipment and not from the vendors. From my experience in the area of water-based cleaning equipment and cleaners in southern California, having a business provide a brief (5-10 minute) overview on how well or poorly a product worked for a specific process conveyed a lot more credibility to her/his peers in the business community. When a business responds to impromptu workshop questions in the language of that business, one is apt to get a more honest answer. Vendors rarely volunteer regulatory information and requirements related to their products such as the testing of spent baths to determine their hazardous nature, permitting for on-site treatment including water evaporators or clarifiers and/or disposal to the sewer, hazardous waste manifesting and transportation, and the unknown toxicity of new cleaning chemicals. I have observed cases where lack of conclusive toxicological data for various water-based cleaners has been marketed as a safe alternative by vendors even when the cleaners contain organic compounds similar to known carcinogens or teratogenic compounds. Vendors are in the business of selling a product, not to get the business community in regulatory or health and safety compliance.

From: Janet Clark <clarkjan@turi.org>

The points made about positive aspects of vendor participation need to be weighed against the negatives. We have seen vendor control of information getting to companies. Always a preferred source, vendors are frequently interested in selling their products and services rather than offering a balanced message. Our director of the Surface Cleaning Lab, supporting aqueous cleaning to replace problematic solvents, has decried the transformation of recent conferences in her field. There is little science in what is presented at panels, only vendor sponsored messages. At the same time, supply chain management suggests a two-way street. If companies trust vendors, are talking to vendors, do business with vendors, then perhaps the whole construct can be encouraged upscale. We have found independent Toxics Use Reduction Planners quite able to provide valuable content in workshops without blatantly marketing. The same is true of ISO 14000 service providers. Certainly a problem is perceived favoritism from the government in providing such a platform.

Janet Clark, Technology Transfer Manager MA Toxics Use Reduction Institute University of Massachusetts One University Ave. Lowell, MA 01854-2866 Tel 978-934-3346, Fax 978-934-3050

http://www.turi.org http://www.turi.org/P2GEMS http://cleaning.org

From: "Gary Nolan" <gary_nolan@qmgate.pln.CO.Santa-Clara.CA.US>

I echo Dale's experience using vendors for presenting technical information at P2 workshops we have conducted. We have depended heavily on pro bono participation of technical experts of both product vendors and consultants. In developing the outline for a particular workshop we work very closely with the technical people of the participating vendors and consultants about our expectations and demands. We also always have representatives from the target industry (the credible spokesperson) that have already installed some of the P2 technologies that are the subject matter of the workshop talk about their experience with the technologies. We have had tremendous success with our workshops. In some cases they were so popular that we had to turn people away at the door. Our local industry has come to trust the merit of the workshops we put on because they know our workshops are technically and reality oriented. No pie in the sky claims about how any particularly P2 technology. This is primarily a result of the fact that we "government types" (I'm from the government and I'm here to help you) do not actually provide any of the technical content of the workshops. Our roll is to do all the planning, resource-gathering, etc to pull together a successful P2 workshop drawing from the actual technical expertise and experience of those who work in or provide services to the target industry. We did have one situation where, at the last minute, one equipment vendor sent their sales rep rather than the technical rep that was supposed to present on one topic at a P2 workshop we put on. The sales rep and his company wound up looking very foolish in comparison to the other presenters all of whom were highly technically qualified. This situation has never happened again. I guess this is a long way of saying that vendors and consultants can be very effective technical presenters at P2 workshops. Particularly when coupled with representatives of firms that have already installed some of the P2 technologies that are the subject of the workshop. Our experience is that the government types can be most "helpful" by doing all the necessary planning activities to make highly credible P2 technology training available to our local industry.

In order for vendor participation to be successful in a P2 training program it is important to very clearly identify the P2 techniques and/or specific technologies that the training program will feature during the planning phase of developing a training program. With the specific training purpose clearly defined the task of securing the desired vendor participation is simplified. It also makes it easier to make sure you get the desired technical staff from the vendors. not sales staff.

Gary Nolan Santa Clara County Pollution Prevention Program

From: "Terry Foecke" <tfoecke@matprod.com>

I have had to deal with this issue, and often groused about presentations that were "too commercial". I have also myself been accused of talking too much about our and appearing "too commercial". Reading the responses to Burt's question leads me to suggest that we may need a definition of "too commercial": Sales staff v. technical staff giving the talk? Touting a specific solution? Lack of balance at a particular gathering between "science", "what's available", and "applied info"? All pie-in-the-sky; nothing about problems? I hesitate to say that where a person pulls up to a desk can be used to define whether or not they will be too "commercial". I also hesitate to rely too heavily on recommendations, since as someone in the audience I prefer levity and a good story, and as a conference organizer I tend to prefer, "Just get to the point!" One crosscutting theme that I always appreciate from any presenter is "How To Make A Good Choice of X". This perforce captures a problem review, an options review, and some implementation guidance that can be customized. Of course, presenters will tend to put a certain emPHAsis on certain syLLAbles to make sure that their option is seen favorably...but it's a balancing act, right?

Terry Foecke, Managing Partner Materials Productivity LLC, 1821 University Avenue, Suite S-219 St. Paul, MN 55104 (p) 651-603-8282 (f) 651-603-8286 tfoecke@matprod.com

From: Sue.Sommerfelt@uni.edu

An interesting dilemma, I hope that the vendors can and will continue to participate. After "we win the war" and P2 professionals are no longer necessary, the vendors will be the information vector. Take the New Pig Corporation for example, they provide outstanding technical and regulatory assistance to their client. They put regulatory summaries in their catalogs and send their client the "Pig Tech News" periodically. When all vendors provide this kind of information to the client as routinely as MSDSs then truly some headway will have been made. Now, if we exclude them from giving and receiving P2 training, how will we bridge the gap?

Sue Sommerfelt, Iowa Waste Reduction Center, www.iwrc.org 1-800-422-3109

Discussion

The responses above indicate that vendor participation in C2/P2 training can and should be an invaluable component, as long as it is properly managed. Careful selection of vendors, focus on technology topics rather than product lines, stories of field experience with various solutions, and effective use of resource materials such as brochures and catalogs are key themes from the experiences reported. Also very important to note is the way that vendor participation makes it possible for under-funded C2/P2 programs to do more training and do it more effectively.

As Terry Foeke asks, "What does 'too commercial' really mean?" Perhaps the best answer is "use the marketplace" - have several vendors participate. Consider the report above about a sales representative who did not really know what he/she was talking about and who performed badly in comparison to other vendor representatives who were technically competent and objective. If there are several vendors participating in the training, there will be a natural competition among them to appear the most professional, and that means focusing on satisfying the customer's need for clear, relatively objective information about alternatives and implementation. Thus one recommendation is that, if vendors are to be used in C2/P2 training, have at least two or three who represent significantly different technology solutions to problems. That way there will be no perception that the sponsors are favoring one company and the expertise present will likely keep vendors honest about their statements. The lead trainers can keep the discussions focused, practical and non-competitive.

Implications for Program Policy

In the author's experience, the decision to exclude vendors from training programs has sometimes been made by local representatives of sponsors who have no guidance or experience with C2/P2 training and its many complex aspects. And many training programs do not specifically exclude vendors, they just never considered involving them.

This is an obvious weakness of C2/P2 training programs that can best be addressed by policy guidance from program management. It should be a specific policy of C2/P2 training programs to include vendors in the training whenever possible, subject to proper management and to use of multiple vendors to avoid charges of favoritism or technology bias. The experiences reported above provide much guidance to the actual types of policies that can be implemented. Because programs operate in such a wide variety of technical, social and commercial environments, all such policies will need to be developed with local expertise. However, there are several themes that seem to be a consensus of experience from the C2/P2 training community:

• Vendors should be selected as trainers only after careful review of their qualifications including recommendations from competent persons who have seen the vendors deliver training. Last-minute substitutes of personnel are not acceptable (don't end up with a sales rep instead of an expert).
• Vendors must submit their presentation materials to the program directors for review.
• Discussion of specific technologies represented by vendors should clearly state the pros AND cons of the technology in comparison to other potential solutions, including those of other vendors.
• Keep the talks on subject matter, not product lines.
• Ensure that there is sufficient technical background material for participants, including brochures, directories of suppliers, etc.
• Don't be too suspicious of vendors. They know that if they do a poor job they will not get invited back, and they will also not impress many potential customers.

Training in CP/P2 Technology Transfer Networks

The use of local vendors gives C2/P2 training participants access to a local network for technology transfer. But there are national, regional and international technology transfer networks available to participants as well and it is important that they learn how to use them. Many of these resources are accessible via the Internet and thus can be reached from almost any country now.

For example, the current edition of GREEN PAGES (http://eco-web.com) is featuring 4,215 leading suppliers and environmental organizations from 94 countries. If a C2/P2 training is being held in Argentina, there are 14 listings for that country in the Green Pages database. This is information that training participants can use right away, and most people are not aware of such resources. It should be kept in mind that the typical industry participant in C2/P2 training does not get to use the Internet for company business or research, probably does not have Internet at home (especially in developing countries), and probably does not use personal time on the web to do research for their employer.

There are also resources for case studies, technology verification, financing, import assistance, etc. - all the things a company must do to actually get a CP/P2 technology solution in place. Training programs should maintain a directory of local and national technology assistance and sourcing organizations and include specific modules for participants about how to find and use these sources. Such modules do not have to be extensive, but they do need to prioritize the resources for the participants.

An interesting way to conduct resources training is with the help of a local Internet Service Provider (ISP). In return for the marketing exposure, the ISP can provide the computer hardware, projectors and network connections needed to do a live Internet demonstration of C2/P2 technical resources. The author used this approach in Indonesia in a C2/P2 workshop for the pulp and paper industry. The Internet demonstration covered relevant industry websites, the major C2/P2 websites and how to use them, and email and newsgroups for sharing questions and answers. The local ISP provided all the systems at no cost, and apparently gained a number of new customers as a result of his demonstration. The advantages of this approach for small training programs with limited time and budget is obvious.

Summary

There appears to be a consensus among many C2/P2 trainers that vendors should be involved in training, following practical guidelines. Now there is a serious need for program managers to institutionalize policies that encourage and guide the use of vendors in training. This is a critical issue for program sustainability and long-term effectiveness. Vendors should not be excluded from participation because local workshop sponsors have unfounded fears about "commercialization" of the C2/P2 message. Specific policy guidance can alleviate these fears and ensure that participants end their training knowing who to call for what problem.

www.CleanerProduction.Com