Search

Search Results

• 1. [Article] Organics to You - Optimization of Produce Bins

  Organics to You (www.organicstoyou.org ) is a produce delivery company that focuses on bringing organic local food from local farms straight to the homes, schools, and businesses of its clients. Each week ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Organics to You - Optimization of Produce Bins Author: Lerdphayakkarat, Rassaniya, Chieh Lu, Chuan, Roschke, Jon, Suzuki, Juliana, Truong, Jessie Year: 2017 Organics to You (www.organicstoyou.org ) is a produce delivery company that focuses on bringing organic local food from local farms straight to the homes, schools, and businesses of its clients. Each week a "Small Bin" is created using different varieties of local produce from various farms. Customers receive a bin that contains 12-14 varieties of produce with 2-6 "servings" of each variety (e.g., 1 melon, 4 apples, 1 head of lettuce, 2 lbs potatoes, etc). Our objective is to optimize the contents of the “Small Bin”. The decision we want to make is how much of each variety do we include in the bin while minimizing capital costs, thus maximizing profits. Constraints will aim to keep each variety within the appropriate "servings" range in order to ensure a well rounded bin and avoid overloading customers with too much of one thing, i.e. we cannot just give everyone twenty pounds of potatoes as cheap as that might be. Title: Organics to You - Optimization of Produce Bins Author: Lerdphayakkarat, Rassaniya, Chieh Lu, Chuan, Roschke, Jon, Suzuki, Juliana, Truong, Jessie Year: 2017 Organics to You (www.organicstoyou.org ) is a produce delivery company that focuses on bringing organic local food from local farms straight to the homes, schools, and businesses of its clients. Each week a "Small Bin" is created using different varieties of local produce from various farms. Customers receive a bin that contains 12-14 varieties of produce with 2-6 "servings" of each variety (e.g., 1 melon, 4 apples, 1 head of lettuce, 2 lbs potatoes, etc). Our objective is to optimize the contents of the “Small Bin”. The decision we want to make is how much of each variety do we include in the bin while minimizing capital costs, thus maximizing profits. Constraints will aim to keep each variety within the appropriate "servings" range in order to ensure a well rounded bin and avoid overloading customers with too much of one thing, i.e. we cannot just give everyone twenty pounds of potatoes as cheap as that might be. Close

• 2. [Article] Business Plan For Riverside Energy LLC

  In 2008, $5.2 billion was spent on program management and supporting contractors in energy efficiency in the United States[1]. Funding for energy efficiency is expected to increase as the cost of power ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Business Plan For Riverside Energy LLC Author: Smeraglio, Matt Year: 2012 In 2008, $5.2 billion was spent on program management and supporting contractors in energy efficiency in the United States[1]. Funding for energy efficiency is expected to increase as the cost of power production rises. This report focuses primarily on energy efficiency available to dairy farms, located in the Northern Mid-West region of the United States. Dairy farms have seen sharp increases in feed prices, large fluctuations in milk prices, and a steady rise in electricity rates. Of these three, it is easiest for the farmer to lower energy consumption. Riverside Energy will enable farmers to realize maximum potential energy and cost savings by offering custom dairy energy audits. Riverside Energy is proposing to startup as a sole proprietorship energy efficiency company, focusing on the agricultural and industrial markets of Michigan, which was ranked most improved in energy efficiency in a recent study [2]. The primary revenue stream will be providing energy audits to dairy farms, which will help them to lower energy consumption, saving substantial money. The final deliverable from Riverside to the customer will be a detailed Dairy Audit Report, detailing the best ways to save energy, and the expected upgrade costs, dollar savings and payback (return on investment) for proposed upgrades. As the demand for energy increases, there is more and more pressure for electrical utilities to build new power plants. But it is more cost effective for utilities to pay energy consuming customers to use less energy than to build new power plants. This promotes the sale of energy efficient equipment and energy audits. For dairies, there are cash incentives to pay for a portion of auditing services, and for dairy equipment upgrades. This in turn promotes Riverside’s auditing revenue stream. The biggest challenge for Riverside will be to compete against established auditors in the Michigan area, which is a fragmented group of university programs, state programs, small companies, and electric utilities. Riverside hopes to differentiate by establishing itself as both agriculturally knowledgeable and highly skilled in detailed analysis. Five primary marketing strategies have been established, which include selling direct to farmers, presenting at trade shows, enrolling in the Michigan Farm Energy Audit Program, participating in utility incentive programs, and creating partnerships with dairy equipment vendors. The most promising will likely be dairy equipment vendor partnerships, because they have the highest amount of contact with dairies, strong generational relationships, and sell the efficient equipment that riverside will propose for upgrades. It is estimated that each audit will sell for between $1,000 to $2,000 dollars, and that there are a potential of 1,900 dairies available for audits in the region. Riverside hopes to capture up to 67 audits per year, which would yield $120,000 in sales per year, taking 4 years to ramp up to this sales level. Pro forma income statements predict a break even after 23 months, with estimated startup costs at $26,700. Funding for this startup will be comprised of owner investment and a small bank loan. Riverside believes it has found a niche in the energy efficiency market through dairy energy audits. Though prospects are promising, further details on additional revenue streams and development of key relationships should be pursued before launch. Riverside could be ready for launch in 6 months to a year. Title: Business Plan For Riverside Energy LLC Author: Smeraglio, Matt Year: 2012 In 2008, $5.2 billion was spent on program management and supporting contractors in energy efficiency in the United States[1]. Funding for energy efficiency is expected to increase as the cost of power production rises. This report focuses primarily on energy efficiency available to dairy farms, located in the Northern Mid-West region of the United States. Dairy farms have seen sharp increases in feed prices, large fluctuations in milk prices, and a steady rise in electricity rates. Of these three, it is easiest for the farmer to lower energy consumption. Riverside Energy will enable farmers to realize maximum potential energy and cost savings by offering custom dairy energy audits. Riverside Energy is proposing to startup as a sole proprietorship energy efficiency company, focusing on the agricultural and industrial markets of Michigan, which was ranked most improved in energy efficiency in a recent study [2]. The primary revenue stream will be providing energy audits to dairy farms, which will help them to lower energy consumption, saving substantial money. The final deliverable from Riverside to the customer will be a detailed Dairy Audit Report, detailing the best ways to save energy, and the expected upgrade costs, dollar savings and payback (return on investment) for proposed upgrades. As the demand for energy increases, there is more and more pressure for electrical utilities to build new power plants. But it is more cost effective for utilities to pay energy consuming customers to use less energy than to build new power plants. This promotes the sale of energy efficient equipment and energy audits. For dairies, there are cash incentives to pay for a portion of auditing services, and for dairy equipment upgrades. This in turn promotes Riverside’s auditing revenue stream. The biggest challenge for Riverside will be to compete against established auditors in the Michigan area, which is a fragmented group of university programs, state programs, small companies, and electric utilities. Riverside hopes to differentiate by establishing itself as both agriculturally knowledgeable and highly skilled in detailed analysis. Five primary marketing strategies have been established, which include selling direct to farmers, presenting at trade shows, enrolling in the Michigan Farm Energy Audit Program, participating in utility incentive programs, and creating partnerships with dairy equipment vendors. The most promising will likely be dairy equipment vendor partnerships, because they have the highest amount of contact with dairies, strong generational relationships, and sell the efficient equipment that riverside will propose for upgrades. It is estimated that each audit will sell for between $1,000 to $2,000 dollars, and that there are a potential of 1,900 dairies available for audits in the region. Riverside hopes to capture up to 67 audits per year, which would yield $120,000 in sales per year, taking 4 years to ramp up to this sales level. Pro forma income statements predict a break even after 23 months, with estimated startup costs at $26,700. Funding for this startup will be comprised of owner investment and a small bank loan. Riverside believes it has found a niche in the energy efficiency market through dairy energy audits. Though prospects are promising, further details on additional revenue streams and development of key relationships should be pursued before launch. Riverside could be ready for launch in 6 months to a year. Close

• 3. [Article] Burgerville: Sustainability and Sourcing in a QSR Supply Chain

  Jack Graves is considering buying chicken. More precisely, Jack is considering where to buy chicken. He needs to make a recommendation to the purchasing team soon, and the decision is complicated. Jack ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Burgerville: Sustainability and Sourcing in a QSR Supply Chain Author: Brown, Darrell, Berko, Phil, Dedrick, Patrick, Hilliard, Brie, Pfleeger, Joshua Year: 2011 Jack Graves is considering buying chicken. More precisely, Jack is considering where to buy chicken. He needs to make a recommendation to the purchasing team soon, and the decision is complicated. Jack is a long-time employee of the Burgerville restaurant chain, a quick-serve restaurant chain in the Northwest USA. Burgerville prides itself in being true to its long-held values while maintaining profitability and growth. Graves’ primary job at Burgerville is to assure that the company’s values are embedded in all its actions, including its relationships to its supply chain. His current concern is the dilemma of which values to promote. Burgerville sells chicken, lots of chicken. So the purchase of chicken has significant impacts on the social and environmental impacts of Burgerville’s supply chain. Should Burgerville buy local, with the inherent social and environmental benefits, while paying attention to concerns about labor issues, animal treatment, and non-organic stewardship? Or should it find a supplier with some assurance that these potential problems are eliminated, regardless of location? Jack knows that Burgerville needs to address this issue soon, as the supply of chicken that is produced to Burgerville’s high standards is small and there are sure to be competitors seeking the same products. He will have to weigh the company’s values and make a recommendation soon. As the Chief Cultural Officer of The Holland Inc., Burgerville’s parent company, Jack Graves is constantly aware of the need to align the Burgerville culture and identity throughout all units of the business, including vendor partners. The chain’s slogan: "Fresh. Local. Sustainable." proclaims its commitment to offering foods differently than other quick serve chains, with specific attention to where food is being sourced. Burgerville aims to deliver on this promise as often as possible, and has had success in the past. Over the past decade, Burgerville has made a concerted effort to ensure its purchasing supports it values. As of 2009, over 70% of Burgerville’s total spending on food products was from local suppliers, up from less than 60% in 2008. With chicken, though, Graves was faced with some difficult questions and hard choices: can Burgerville find a local supplier who can provide a sufficient quantity and quality of breaded and plain chicken breasts and chicken strips at a cost comparable to the existing national brand supplier? Is buying local the most important decision to make for Burgerville and its image? Is the issue more than simply reducing the distance the food travels from origin to the customer? Are Burgerville customers willing to pay a premium for locally sourced chicken? It makes sense to purchase from local farmers who may then become loyal customers, but what if distant farms operate more sustainably than the local farms? Is there a sustainable chicken farm that could handle Burgerville’s demand? These questions weigh on Graves’s mind as he struggles to balance the chain’s profitability with the company’s values. Title: Burgerville: Sustainability and Sourcing in a QSR Supply Chain Author: Brown, Darrell, Berko, Phil, Dedrick, Patrick, Hilliard, Brie, Pfleeger, Joshua Year: 2011 Jack Graves is considering buying chicken. More precisely, Jack is considering where to buy chicken. He needs to make a recommendation to the purchasing team soon, and the decision is complicated. Jack is a long-time employee of the Burgerville restaurant chain, a quick-serve restaurant chain in the Northwest USA. Burgerville prides itself in being true to its long-held values while maintaining profitability and growth. Graves’ primary job at Burgerville is to assure that the company’s values are embedded in all its actions, including its relationships to its supply chain. His current concern is the dilemma of which values to promote. Burgerville sells chicken, lots of chicken. So the purchase of chicken has significant impacts on the social and environmental impacts of Burgerville’s supply chain. Should Burgerville buy local, with the inherent social and environmental benefits, while paying attention to concerns about labor issues, animal treatment, and non-organic stewardship? Or should it find a supplier with some assurance that these potential problems are eliminated, regardless of location? Jack knows that Burgerville needs to address this issue soon, as the supply of chicken that is produced to Burgerville’s high standards is small and there are sure to be competitors seeking the same products. He will have to weigh the company’s values and make a recommendation soon. As the Chief Cultural Officer of The Holland Inc., Burgerville’s parent company, Jack Graves is constantly aware of the need to align the Burgerville culture and identity throughout all units of the business, including vendor partners. The chain’s slogan: "Fresh. Local. Sustainable." proclaims its commitment to offering foods differently than other quick serve chains, with specific attention to where food is being sourced. Burgerville aims to deliver on this promise as often as possible, and has had success in the past. Over the past decade, Burgerville has made a concerted effort to ensure its purchasing supports it values. As of 2009, over 70% of Burgerville’s total spending on food products was from local suppliers, up from less than 60% in 2008. With chicken, though, Graves was faced with some difficult questions and hard choices: can Burgerville find a local supplier who can provide a sufficient quantity and quality of breaded and plain chicken breasts and chicken strips at a cost comparable to the existing national brand supplier? Is buying local the most important decision to make for Burgerville and its image? Is the issue more than simply reducing the distance the food travels from origin to the customer? Are Burgerville customers willing to pay a premium for locally sourced chicken? It makes sense to purchase from local farmers who may then become loyal customers, but what if distant farms operate more sustainably than the local farms? Is there a sustainable chicken farm that could handle Burgerville’s demand? These questions weigh on Graves’s mind as he struggles to balance the chain’s profitability with the company’s values. Close

• 4. [Article] Wind Turbine Demolition Proposal

  Using wind turbines to harness the kinetic energy of the wind to produce electricity has been around for over a hundred years. Wind turbines are a key component in the movement toward reducing our dependency ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Wind Turbine Demolition Proposal Author: Valentine, Timothy, Corban, Horatiu, Mueller, Randy Year: 2016 Using wind turbines to harness the kinetic energy of the wind to produce electricity has been around for over a hundred years. Wind turbines are a key component in the movement toward reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and replacing with renewable energy sources. However, as advances in wind turbine technology are made, older wind farms require “repowering”. Repowering is the process of replacing older wind turbines with newer, more efficient models that can generate more power. Part of the repowering process involves the demolition of existing wind turbines. This project proposal describes the project management procedures that will be required to complete the decommissioning and demolition of a single wind turbine. Appendix A presents the “matrix” organizational structure that will be utilized for this project. The president of the company will oversee the project, but will not be directly involved. Title: Wind Turbine Demolition Proposal Author: Valentine, Timothy, Corban, Horatiu, Mueller, Randy Year: 2016 Using wind turbines to harness the kinetic energy of the wind to produce electricity has been around for over a hundred years. Wind turbines are a key component in the movement toward reducing our dependency on fossil fuels and replacing with renewable energy sources. However, as advances in wind turbine technology are made, older wind farms require “repowering”. Repowering is the process of replacing older wind turbines with newer, more efficient models that can generate more power. Part of the repowering process involves the demolition of existing wind turbines. This project proposal describes the project management procedures that will be required to complete the decommissioning and demolition of a single wind turbine. Appendix A presents the “matrix” organizational structure that will be utilized for this project. The president of the company will oversee the project, but will not be directly involved. Close

• 5. [Article] Institutional Sustainable Purchasing Priorities: Stakeholder Perceptions vs Environmental Reality

  Purpose This purpose of this paper is to understand the environmental impacts of stakeholder-driven sustainable purchasing policies in institutional settings. Design/methodology/approach The research is ...

  Citation × Citation Citation Abstract Copy Title: Institutional Sustainable Purchasing Priorities: Stakeholder Perceptions vs Environmental Reality Author: Pullman, Madeleine, Wikoff, Robin Year: 2017 Purpose This purpose of this paper is to understand the environmental impacts of stakeholder-driven sustainable purchasing policies in institutional settings. Design/methodology/approach The research is framed using stakeholder and life cycle assessment (LCA) theories. The study uses a multi-method approach. Starting with interviews to understand the breadth of sustainability issues and significant food purchases facing institutional purchasing managers, the authors subsequently perform LCA of these various policies using the most popular food item in different categories. Findings From the interview results, the authors found that food purchasers focus predominately on cost, thus, are committed to food and packaging reduction. They are driven to buy local foods based on their consumer stakeholders but share their commitment to buying local products if the cost is appropriate. In the LCA of popular food items in multiple scenarios, avoiding food waste of various forms had significantly higher carbon emissions savings than packaging reduction or transportation minimizing (buy local) strategies. Research limitations/implications The sample relied solely on the perceptions of institutional purchasing managers in university dining services. Future research should involve collecting data from other stakeholder groups such as the customers themselves, institutional leaders, and in other types of institutional settings such as hospitals and government agencies. Practical implications The research provides managers with insights concerning the trade-offs between different sustainability objectives. In particular, findings show that reducing waste related animal protein has a bigger impact on environmental performance than many other popular sustainability objectives such as buying local or reducing packaging waste. Social implications The paper focuses on the purchasing trade-offs of buying local vs national food products, different packaging solutions, and food waste generation. These decisions offer some social benefits (improve the economic situation for local farms vs consolidated food producers) as well as multiple environmental benefits. Originality/value The paper presents new findings on the sustainability purchasing priorities of stakeholders in institutional food settings and subsequent LCA of those policies to show which might have the most environmental impact. Title: Institutional Sustainable Purchasing Priorities: Stakeholder Perceptions vs Environmental Reality Author: Pullman, Madeleine, Wikoff, Robin Year: 2017 Purpose This purpose of this paper is to understand the environmental impacts of stakeholder-driven sustainable purchasing policies in institutional settings. Design/methodology/approach The research is framed using stakeholder and life cycle assessment (LCA) theories. The study uses a multi-method approach. Starting with interviews to understand the breadth of sustainability issues and significant food purchases facing institutional purchasing managers, the authors subsequently perform LCA of these various policies using the most popular food item in different categories. Findings From the interview results, the authors found that food purchasers focus predominately on cost, thus, are committed to food and packaging reduction. They are driven to buy local foods based on their consumer stakeholders but share their commitment to buying local products if the cost is appropriate. In the LCA of popular food items in multiple scenarios, avoiding food waste of various forms had significantly higher carbon emissions savings than packaging reduction or transportation minimizing (buy local) strategies. Research limitations/implications The sample relied solely on the perceptions of institutional purchasing managers in university dining services. Future research should involve collecting data from other stakeholder groups such as the customers themselves, institutional leaders, and in other types of institutional settings such as hospitals and government agencies. Practical implications The research provides managers with insights concerning the trade-offs between different sustainability objectives. In particular, findings show that reducing waste related animal protein has a bigger impact on environmental performance than many other popular sustainability objectives such as buying local or reducing packaging waste. Social implications The paper focuses on the purchasing trade-offs of buying local vs national food products, different packaging solutions, and food waste generation. These decisions offer some social benefits (improve the economic situation for local farms vs consolidated food producers) as well as multiple environmental benefits. Originality/value The paper presents new findings on the sustainability purchasing priorities of stakeholders in institutional food settings and subsequent LCA of those policies to show which might have the most environmental impact. Close