Applying organizational environmental tools and techniques

Corporate Social Responsibility and Environmental ManagementCorp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt 9, 116–125 (2002)Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/csr.18

APPLYING ORGANIZATIONALENVIRONMENTAL TOOLSAND TECHNIQUES

Elaine Lawrence,1* Duncan Andrews,1 Brian Ralph2 and Chris France3

1 Lucas Wiring Systems, UK2 Brunel University, UK3 University of Surrey, UK

Although the application of tools andtechniques to support environmentaldecision-making is increasing withinorganizations, there is concern that theyare not bringing the desired improvementsin performance. A key reason is thattools/techniques need to be placed incontext so that they also support theoverall aims of the business. Within theISO14000 series there are two techniquesdefined, auditing and life cycle assessment(LCA), but there are a growing number oftools and techniques that are outside thescope of the standards. For those inorganizations tasked with implementingenvironmental improvements identifyingappropriate tools and techniques can be adaunting task. A process identifying andaligning environmental tools andtechniques within a business wide contextis presented, supported by the results of apractical application over a two-yearperiod within a UK automotive supplier.

* Correspondence to: Elaine Lawrence, 5 Aldersea Close,Burslem, Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, ST6 4DY, UK.E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

The results from application suggest thatthis approach should be useful for otherorganizations. Copyright 2002 JohnWiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment.

Received 15 September 1999Revised 9 August 2001Accepted 22 October 2001

INTRODUCTION

It is becoming increasingly advocated that,for long-term benefit, environmental man-agement needs to be focused on achieving

strategic business objectives (Lawrence et al.,2002a). This means that environmental deci-sions need to be integrated within the widerorganizational decision-making processes. Therole of tools and techniques cannot be over-emphasized in supporting ‘fact-based’, ratherthan ‘gut-feel’ environmental decision-makingat a real-time operational level.

Literature on environmental tools and tech-niques is rapidly increasing. While tools aredefined as having a narrow focus and areusually used on their own, techniques arecomparatively more complex, have a broaderapplication and require more skill, thought

ORGANIZATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL TOOLS AND TECHNIQUES

and training to be used effectively (Dale andMcQuater, 1998). There are two techniquesthat are included within the ISO14000 series:life cycle assessment (LCA) and environmentalauditing. In addition, tools such as brainstorm-ing, ‘green’ teams and force-field analysis andtechniques such as ecobalance, benchmarking,environmental accounting and design for envi-ronment have all been advocated for envi-ronmental management (Azzone and Noci,1996; Cramer, 1998; Fusler and James, 1996;DeMenonca and Baxter, 2001). In addition,several techniques are being adapted fromthe quality management field, such as qualityfunction deployment (QFD) and failure modeand effects analysis (Akao, 1997; Lawrenceet al., 2002a). There is clearly scope to continuethis work.

While proponents cite numerous success sto-ries of a particular tool/technique in practice,experience from quality management mustalso suggest that the reverse is true, althoughthese are much harder to find in the lit-erature. Within quality management, whichis further developed and associated with awider range of techniques, their use is by nomeans widespread and a number of difficultieshave been identified, such as inappropriate useand ‘cherrypicking’; discipline and purpose;and level of training and expertise (Dale andMcQuater, 1998).

Although there is clear evidence that orga-nizations are investing resource and financesin adopting environmental tools and tech-niques there is concern within the literaturethat these are not resulting in the expected levelof improvement or the supporting strategicachievement (Laestadius and Karlson, 2001).Managers within industry are often confusedabout how to integrate environmental con-siderations into existing decision-making andwhich tools/techniques to apply to differentenvironmental situations (Roome and Bergin,2000; Finkbeiner et al., 1998). This suggests thatorganizations are struggling to align environ-mental tools and techniques with a genuinebusiness need and therefore unable to integrate

their application into daily decision-making(Theyel, 2000). This is a major barrier fororganizations that do aim to improve theirenvironmental performance (Havemann andDorfmann, 1999). No tool or technique shouldbe viewed as a panacea, and used in iso-lation they are unlikely to be successfulin achieving company-wide improvement.Tools/techniques must be carefully selected soensure they are relevant to the problem at hand(Bilitewski et al., 1998).

This fast development of environmentaltools and techniques poses important ques-tions that highlight a real need for practicalresearch and application. How can those inindustry tasked with delivering environmentalimprovements be sure that adopting a par-ticular tool or technique can really supporteffective decision-making? How can use of anenvironmental tool/technique be aligned interms of wider organizational aims?

ORGANIZATIONAL ROLE OF TOOLSAND TECHNIQUES

A starting point in addressing these limitationsis to take an internal view of an organizationand identify the role of tools and techniqueswithin the wider context of the organization(Figure 1).

In taking this internal organizational view,TQM is considered the overall philosophy thatdrives the organization. Within the framework,two overall systems are apparent. The firstis a vertical planning system that cascadesstrategic objectives into operational plans.As the process is the same regardless ofthe strategy/function, environmental improve-ment can be considered no more or less impor-tant than other organizational strategies. Thispresents a clear role for environmental man-agers: to have a clear awareness of where sig-nificant decisions that have an environmentalopportunity are being made and to shift froma specialist to a business orientation (Greenoet al., 1998).

Copyright 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd and ERP Environment Corp. Soc. Responsib. Environ. Mgmt 9, 116–125 (2002)

117

E. LAWRENCE ET AL.

BusinessStrategy

StrategicPlanningProcess

Business ProcessManagement Systems•••••

New Product Introduction OperationsQualityHealth & SafetyEnvironment

•

•••••

In-Service Quality

Measures ofPerformance

Activity Base

Roles and Responsibilities

Tools and Techniques

EnvironmentStrategy

QualityStrategy

ManufacturingStrategy

MarketingStrategy

PurchasingStrategy

TQ StrategyCustomer Focus Process ImprovementEmployee InvolvementContinual ImprovementManagement &Deployment of Policy

Figure 1. Generic model for understanding the role of tools and techniques (adapted from Lawrence et al., 1998)

The second system focuses on the businessprocess management systems that run later-ally through the organization, such as newproduct introduction, operations, quality man-agement, in-service quality management andlogistics/supply chain. This horizontal focusis important, as for long-term improvementactivities need facilitating across functionalboundaries (Witcher and Butterworth, 2001).

Both vertical strategic planning and lat-eral business processes interact to identifykey organizational roles with decision-makingresponsibilities. However, it is not enoughfor these employees just to be given thetask of environmental decision-making as itis unlikely that improvements will becomefirmly embedded at an operational levelunless supported by a range of tools andtechniques that encourage ‘fact-based’ ratherthan ‘gut-feel’ decision making. An effectivechoice and application of tools and tech-niques is therefore vital in implementing strate-gic aims.

Measures of performance (MOPs) haveseveral purposes; they can be designed toensure tools and techniques are used effec-tively, to monitor the operation of lateral

business processes or measure achievement ofstrategic aims.

ENVIRONMENTAL TOOLS ANDTECHNIQUES

Summarizing and comparing tools and tech-niques available for quality and environmen-tal decision-making reveal some significantpoints (Table 1). First, existing quality tools,such as Pareto analysis and scatter graphs,can often be directly applied to environmen-tal management without adaptation. Tools canalso support the application of techniques, forexample the use of checklists in environmen-tal auditing, which places greater emphasison the use and application of techniques. Sec-ond, there are many more techniques availablefor supporting quality decisions than environ-mental decisions. Currently, this places greaterreliance on fewer techniques, such as life-cycle assessment, that are specifically designedfor environmental decision-making. Qualitytechniques can also support environmentalimprovements. For example, total preventa-tive maintenance has a direct impact on energy


118


Table 1. Examples of tools and techniques

Tools (applicable to bothenvironment and quality)

Techniques

Cause and effectanalysis

Arrow diagrams Quality techniques Environmental techniques

Checksheets Matrix data analysismethods

Benchmarking Benchmarking

Graphs/charts Matrix diagrams Cost of quality (CoQ) Environmental accountingHistograms PDPC Total preventative maintenance

(TPM)Total preventative maintenance

(TPM)Pareto analysis Relation diagrams Design of experiments (DoE) Environmental auditing

Design for manufacture (DfM) Design for environment (DFE)Scatter diagrams Systematic diagrams Failure mode and effects analysis

(FMEA)Failure mode and effects

analysis (FMEA)Affinity diagrams Flowcharting Quality function deployment

(QFD)Quality function deployment

(QFD)Brainstorming Mind-mapping Statistical process control (SPC) Statistical process control (SPC)Questionnaire Sampling Risk assessment Mass balanceRanking and rating Force-field analysis Measurement systems analysis

(MSA)Life cycle assessment

Poke yoke (mistakeproofing) Design for recycling (DFR)Value analysisAdvanced product quality

planning (APQP)Production parts approval process

(PPAP)

efficiency, statistical process control impacts onmaterials usage and just in time supports wasteminimization. The use of failure mode andeffects analysis (FMEA) and quality functiondeployment (QFD) is being adapted withinmany companies to support environmentaldecision-making (Lawrence et al., 2002a; Akao,1997). Third, there is a greater amount of litera-ture describing detailed methods for applyingquality techniques that are also industry spe-cific, such as QS9000 reference manuals withinthe automotive industry, than environmentaltechniques. This shows that there are signifi-cant practical developments needed in organi-zational environmental techniques, where pub-lications are still vague for those implementingindustrial improvements (ISO, 1996).

Understanding these tools and techniquesin principle is not enough for organizationsto identify those that are pertinent to theiractivities. It is important to place them in the

context of the functional aims and businessprocesses (Table 2). This view of environ-mental techniques is a step beyond achiev-ing certification to the ISO14001 standard. Anenvironmental management system is a basicframework that is supported by environmen-tal decision-making tools and techniques forassessing/prioritizing impacts and supportingmanagement programmes.

In the model, ‘environment’ as a busi-ness process and function has been deliber-ately excluded. Within organizations environ-mental responsibility is often combined withother functions, such as quality or healthand safety (Clinch, 2001). This means thatthere is often limited resource for all envi-ronmental decision-making to remain withinan environmental function. In many organi-zations, significant decisions with an environ-mental impact are made in other functions ofthe organization and with non-environmental


119

E. LAWRENCE ET AL.

Table 2. The role of environmental techniques within the organization functions/processes

Organisational Function

Sales &Marketing Design

Logistics/Purchasing Manufacturing Engineering Quality Finance

Life Cycle Assessment

Design for Recycling/Disassembly

Quality Function Deployment

Prod

uct I

ntro

duct

ion

Syst

em

Mass Balance

Environmental Process Failure Mode & Effects Analysis

Statistical Process Control

Total Preventative Maintenance

Environmental Audit

Ope

ratio

ns

Benchmarking

Bus

ines

s Pr

oces

s

Supp

lyC

hain

Environmental Design Failure Mode &

Effects Analysis

Design forManufacture

EnvironmentalAccounting

EnvironmentalAccounting

Design forEnvironment

Design forManufacture

EnvironmentalAudit

‘specialists’. By excluding the environmentalfunction the focus is therefore concentrated onthe selection, implementation and monitoringof tools and techniques that support decision-making within the rest of the organization.

APPLYING A DECISION MODEL FORIDENTIFYING ENVIRONMENTALTECHNIQUES

This section describes how a process foridentifying environmental techniques has beentested, to establish its relevance within anindustrial setting. Results from a practicalapplication are presented, that discuss thedevelopment of a decision-making ‘toolbox’over a two-year period within Lucas WiringSystems (LWS), formally part of TRW, aglobal organization supplying automotive andaerospace systems and components. This workstemmed from concurrent work in developingan environmental strategy.

To describe how the process for select-ing tools and techniques was applied at apractical level an implementation process isdescribed (Figure 2). Although the processwas viewed as circular, ideally with infor-mation flowing in both directions, it wasenvisaged that in the initial stages of appli-cation that environmental techniques wouldnot be mature enough to influence otherareas of the business. With successive itera-tions the aim would be that environmentaldecision-making would become more inte-grated within the organization. The keystages in implementing this process were thefollowing.

(i) Develop strategic environmental aimsthat were aligned within business aims(Lawrence et al., 2002b).

(ii) Identify detailed functional action plansand tools/techniques that supported theirimplementation at an operational level.


120


Identify environmentalobjectives

Identify functional actionplans

Identify currently usedtools/techniques.

Map current techniques toenvironmental objectives

Identify opportunities foradapted/new

tools/techniques

Consolidatetools/techniques to formstrategic environmental

action plan

Develop, implement &monitor effectiveness

Figure 2. Implementation model for selecting environ-mental techniques

(iii) Identify where current tools/techniquescould support achievement of environ-mental aims.

(iv) Identify opportunities for adapted, or newtechniques for achieving any environmen-tal aims that were not currently supported.

(v) Consolidate the application of tools andtechniques to form a strategic environ-mental action plan that was aligned withwide business plans.

(vi) Develop, implement and monitor theeffectiveness of tools/techniques.

Before the process was developed LWS had noclear environmental strategy beyond achiev-ing ISO14001 and legislative compliance. Therewere no environmental techniques in usewithin the organization. This is perhaps a sim-ilar situation to many organizations. WithinLWS, the organization was structured into sev-eral business units that controlled functionsnormally regarded as central, such as mar-keting, finance and engineering. A key centralfunction controlled quality and advanced engi-neering projects, with other central activitiesincluding IT, purchasing and central finance.Due to the structured approach for strate-gic planning, it was straightforward to iden-tify the business objectives, functional objec-tive and plans. This was a clear benefit inbeing part of a global organization. Thiswas achieved through group discussions andrequired a detailed understanding of current

tools/techniques used within the business. Asan automotive supplier a wide range of toolsand techniques were in use, although this var-ied between the businesses.

Throughout the two-year period an aimwas to implement environmental techniquesthat were currently in existence rather thandevelop any new techniques. Only where therewas no technique/tool currently in existencewould a new one be considered. An aim astechniques were introduced was to ensure theycould be controlled within an ISO14001-basedmanagement system.

By taking the detailed strategic action plans,it was possible to identify non-environmentaltools and techniques that would be used toachieve improvements. These were then con-solidated to give an overall view of LWS(Figure 3). Initial mapping involved takingeach of the business units individually tounderstand which techniques could supportachievement at a local level. By completingthis it was possible to assess whether or notthey could also be used to support environ-mental improvements. As tools and techniqueswere identified it became clear that manyactivities within the organization had an envi-ronmental benefit, for example SPC, but hadnot been considered or measured from anenvironmental perspective. These techniqueshad been applied within the business unitsfor several years and the main requirementwas to develop performance measures thatcould be used within environmental man-agement. Environmental aims could not befully achieved without adapting existing tech-niques and developing techniques that werenew to the organization. Tools and techniqueswere selected from both within and out-side the scope of the ISO14000 series. Theseopportunities were consolidated with exist-ing tools/techniques to form a comprehensiveaction plan.

Within the first year of identifying tech-niques, environmental resource focused withinoperations. During successive iterations the


121

E. LAWRENCE ET AL.

Organisational Function (consolidated across all business units)

Sales &Marketing Design

Logistics/Purchasing Manufacturing Engineering Quality Finance

Prod

uct

Intr

oduc

tion

Syst

em

Failure Mode & Effects Analysis: ISO14001

Ope

ratio

ns

Benchmarking: Manufacturing targets, e.g. scrap, rejects, etc

Bus

ines

s pr

oces

s

Supp

lyC

hain

Environmental audit

supply localisation

Environmental Action PlanDevelop• Environmental Failure Mode and Effects Analysis for ISO14001 system.• Develop Measures of performance for Statistical Process Control and Total Preventative Maintenance across businesses.• Benchmark manufacturing performance• Develop environmental auditing technique for process development, energy management, distribution, packaging and supply.• Introduce Life Cycle Assessment within new concept designs and new materials• Introduce Design for Disassembly technique for new concepts.

Design formanufacture: Thin

wall cables

Design formanufacture:

Thin wall cables

Design for recycling/disassembly:New concept designs

Life cycle assessment: Alternative cable insulation materials, Advanced energy management systems

Statistical Process Control – Lean Production,materials management, process capability

Total Preventative Maintenance: Increase capacity,machine & tool utilisation, energy minimisation

Environmental Audit: Energy minimisation, alternativeprocessing technologies, e.g. soldering

Packaging minimisation;Distribution costs,

Business Objectives (1)

Quality, supply and delivery Performance Increase European market share Increase customer base.

Cable Objectives Grow automotive market. Maintain domestic market Exit specialist market Widen customer base

Components Objectives Increase sales and sales profit Expand customer base Expand product range Stock reduction

Harness Objectives Increase market share Internal customer base Product & process state of art technology

Engineering & Quality Optimise engineering facilities. Develop Electrical distribution systems Develop TQ practices

Environment Objectives Achieve ISO14001 Reduce material base Introduce alternative processing technologies Introduce new design concepts

Figure 3. Business aims and supporting techniques

focus began to shift towards production intro-duction, in particular to develop techniquesthat could assist in new concept designs. Thiswas a key development where there was nosuitable technique within the organization thatcould be adapted.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of developing this process was totake a holistic view of organizational tools andtechniques that could support environmental

decision-making and apply them by link-ing their use to a genuine business need. Akey advantage for LWS in using this pro-cess was that it eliminated what was felt tobe the confusion surrounding environmen-tal tools and techniques. It had been diffi-cult to understand how techniques within theISO14000 series linked with those outside thescope of the standards and how environmentaltools/techniques related to quality manage-ment. Using the process LWS were able to con-solidate all tools and techniques that were usedin the organization and place them in context


122


of environmental decision-making. This gave alevel of confidence in identifying and selectingtools and techniques. The ISO14001-basedenvironmental management system becameviewed as a means to control and manage theapplication of tools and techniques.

Through practical application, the processdescribed aimed to consolidate all activitiesacross the organization, to identify whereexisting tools and techniques that repre-sented an environmental benefit were beingemployed and opportunities for introducingspecific environmental decision-making toolsand techniques. By consolidating activities itwas possible to identify a complete rangeof activities that had not been consideredfrom an environmental perspective. Theseactivities represented estimated cost-savingsof £90 k p/a. The process was also found tosupport the development of environmentaltool/techniques and this represents a signifi-cant development in terms of environmentalmanagement.

An advantage of this process was that LWShad a clearly structured process for businessplanning that was cascaded through all areasof the organization. While this could suggestthat this process is only applicable for largerorganizations, this is not necessarily the caseand many other factors are also important,such as organizational complexity, structureand leadership.

By testing the model, it was also use-ful in communicating the business need forimplementing environmental decision-makingto other functions within the organization.This clarity is a clear benefit, especially wherethe environmental function can be viewedas a specialist, technical and legislative func-tion that is removed from daily businessactivities.

The model did not require full time resourcebut did require a detailed understandingof the business and organizational strate-gic action plans. As LWS had no dedi-cated environmental resource, with employ-ees also managing other roles it was not

possible to allocate valuable people to afull time model and the emphasis was todevelop a ‘toolbox’ rather than identify thetool/techniques.

During the two-year period it was not pos-sible to develop and implement some tech-niques, even though they had been identi-fied as potentially suitable and linked to aclear business need. This was particularly truewith the LCA technique, which was found tobe limited in supporting the real-time oper-ational decision-making that was required.Alternative tools, such as checklists, wereemployed until the technique could be devel-oped.

Implementing techniques within the opera-tions management process was more straight-forward, as information was mainly withinthe organizational boundaries and thereforepossible to capture. Particularly when adapt-ing existing techniques for environmentaldecision-making, the issue of double report-ing was highlighted. As many techniques wereintegrated within non-environmental func-tions it was important that care and atten-tion was paid to measuring performance asthis could cause significantly more work ata shop-floor, data processing level that ulti-mately would not bring any real benefit to theorganization.

Despite being linked within a business needthe use of environmental tools and tech-niques did need to be continually driven.This was believed to be not because envi-ronmental tools and techniques were moredifficult to maintain than quality techniques,but because to ensure environmental decision-making could become integrated within theorganization would take time and support.Identifying a link to a genuine businessneed did not ensure that its use was imme-diately endorsed, but it did make train-ing and its introduction more straightfor-ward.

All techniques were directly tailored to theneeds of the business. When adapting tech-niques it became apparent that the ‘same’


123

E. LAWRENCE ET AL.

technique was being applied differently withineach business unit. While this was viewed as anopportunity to strengthen and encourage stan-dardization, it did mean that greater thoughtwas needed in their development and imple-mentation.

CONCLUSIONS

It is proposed that it is not enough for organi-zations to pass responsibility for environmen-tal improvement to employees without devel-oping tool/techniques to support decision-making. This paper has aimed to supportthis need by developing a model for con-structing an environmental ‘toolbox’ that isaligned with the wider needs of the busi-ness. This is clearly needed as organizationsstruggle to align environmental considerationsinto their activities. The model maps environ-mental techniques with the horizontal busi-ness processes and vertical functions by usingthe strategic action plans for the business.The model was developed and tested overa two-year period within a UK automotivesupplier and was useful in supporting thedevelopment of both a strategic environmen-tal action plan and environmental ‘toolbox’.A lack of factual information was found tobe a major limiting factor in implementingsome environmental techniques with prod-uct introduction, despite being linked with agenuine business need. This highlights a keydevelopment area within organizational envi-ronmental management. The generic nature ofthe model suggests that this approach shouldalso be relevant within other organizations andindustries.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was conducted while registered on theUniversity of Surrey/Brunel University EngineeringDoctorate (EngD) Programme in Environmental Tech-nology. The authors’ thanks are expressed to the EPSRCand Lucas Wiring Systems for their invaluable support.

REFERENCES

Akao Y. 1997. QFD: Past, Present and Future, Proceedingsof the Third Annual International QFD Symposium,Linkoping.

Azzone G, Noci G. 1996. Identifying effective PMS’s forthe deployment of ‘green’ manufacturing strategies.International Journal of Production and OperationsManagement 18(4): 308–335.

Bilitewski B, Bringezu S, Bro-rasmussen F, Clift R,Frischknekt R, Sorup P, Udo de Haes H. 1998.Chainet: a Definition Document, European Network onChain Analysis for Environmental Decision Support.www.leidenuniv.nl/interfac/cml/chainet [July].

Clinch J. 2001. Towards a more integrated approachto environmental and health and safety policy. Eco-Management and Auditing 8: 1.

Cramer J. 1998. Environmental management: from ‘fit’to ‘stretch’. Business Strategy and the Environment 7:162–172.

Dale B, McQuater R. 1998. Managing BusinessImprovement and Quality: Implementing Key Tools andTechniques. Blackwell: Oxford.

DeMenonca M, Baxter TE. 2001. Design for theenvironment: an approach to achieve theISO14000 international standardisation. EnvironmentalManagement and Health 12(12): 51–56.

Finkbeiner M, Widemann M, Saur K. 1998. Acomprehensive approach towards product andorganisation related environmental management tools:Life Cycle Assessment (ISO14040) and EnvironmentalManagement Systems (ISO14001). International Journalof Life Cycle Assessment 3(3): 169–178.

Fusler C, James P. 1996. Driving Eco-Innovation. Pitman:London.

Greeno J, Hedstrom G, Shopley J. 1998. Using EHSto create business value and strategic advantage.Corporate Environmental Strategy 5(3): 40–46.

Haveman M, Dorfmann M. 1999. Breaking down thegreen wall. Corporate Environmental Strategy 6: 4.

International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO).1996. Life Cycle Assessment: Principles and Framework.ISO.

Laestadius S, Karlson L. 2001. Eco-efficient products andservices through LCA in R&D/design. EnvironmentalManagement and Health 12(2): 181–190.

Lawrence L, Andrews D, France C. 1998. Alignment anddeployment of environmental strategy through TQM.The TQM Magazine 10(4): 238–245.

Lawrence L, Andrews D, Ralph B, France C. 2002a.Identifying and assigning significance to environmen-tal aspects and impacts. The TQM Magazine 14(1).

Lawrence L, Andrews D, Ralph B, France C. 2002b.Using Generic Families for Developing OrganisationalEnvironmental Strategy. Brunel University, in press.


124


Roome N, Bergin R. 2000. The challenges ofsustainable development: lessons from OntarioHydro. Corporate Environmental Strategy 7(1):2–18.

Theyel G. 2000. Management practices for environmentalinnovation and performance. International Journalof Production and Operations Management 20(2):249–266.

Witcher B, Butterworth R. 2001. Hoshin Kanri:policy management in Japanese owned sub-sidiaries. Journal of Management Studies 38(5):651–673.

BIOGRAPHY

Elaine Lawrence works at Lucas Wiring Sys-tems, UK, and can be contacted atE-mail: [email protected]

Duncan Andrews also works at LucasWiring Systems. Professor Brian Ralph is atBrunel University, UK, and Chris France is atthe University of Surrey.


125

Documents

Applying organizational environmental tools and techniques