Energy most important asset by agustin gonzalez

ENERGY

Your Most Important Asset

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Energy management is serious business. However, the enclosed comics can help you take a fresh perspective on typical energy management challenges. We trust these will provide added awareness and insight into your most important invisible asset: Energy.â&#x20AC;?

MPI Sustainability Insight

Energy Awareness — Feeling the Pain The last few years have challenged manufacturers, forcing them to improve efficiency and lower costs. Yet many executives and managers have missed obvious opportunities to do both by reducing energy consumption. Approximately 87% of plants reported that annual utility/fuel costs had increased, and 21% of plants reported that costs had increased by more than 10%, according to the MPI Manufacturing Study.1

Utility/fuel cost (per unit basis) annual change % of plants Decreased more than 10%

0.7%

Decreased 6–10%

0.7%

Decreased 1–5%

2.7%

No change

7.5%

Increased 1–5%

32.8%

Increased 6–10%

34.5%

Increased more than 10%

21.2%

Source: 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study

Energy-supply volatility also wreaks havoc on manufacturing profits. One catastrophic event — a hurricane, overloading of the power grid, or similar unexpected interruption of supply — can dramatically increase energy costs beyond even the most careful projections. For example, although in January 2010 the Energy Information Administration (EIA) predicted a 2011 average price for regular-grade gasoline of $2.96 per gallon, prices hit $4 during the year and could still move significantly higher in 2012 and beyond. At this point, the only certainty about energy prices is continued volatility, which will continue to damage bottom lines — until manufacturers track and manage energy costs like any other production input. Are you ready to take control of energy costs?

2011 MPI Manufacturing Study, survey of U.S. and international plants, The MPI Group, 2011.

mpi sustainability insight

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Energy Awakening — Can Consumption Be Managed? Most executives understand the role that energy — and, at a higher level, sustainability — will have on their operations. In fact, only 12% of manufacturing-plant executives do not recognize the importance of sustainability to their success over the next five years. Approximately 61% believe sustainability is important: “highly important” (10% of plants), “important” (24%), and “somewhat important” (27%).1 Recognizing the importance of sustainability — and realizing that energy and emissions can be managed — goes a long way in achieving cost-saving performances related to sustainability. For example, 78% of manufacturers who rate sustainability as highly important or important have an energy-management program in place, compared to 65% of plants where sustainability is somewhat important and just 31% of plants where sustainability is of minor importance or not important.

All plants

Sustainability — minor importance or not important

Sustainability — somewhat important

Sustainability — Highly important or important

Energy management

56.6%

31.3%

65.1%

77.7%

Use of renewable energies

11.3%

2.6%

9.6%

21.4%

Formal green corporate program

12.9%

3.5%

8.4%

27.2%

Recycling/reuse program

76.2%

68.7%

79.5%

81.6%

Carbon footprinting

11.3%

0.9%

9.6%

24.3%

Source: 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study

Even more compelling is evidence of the cost savings possible via sustainability: • Plants that rate sustainability as highly important or important report a 4% one-year reduction in energy per unit of output (median). • Plants that rate sustainability as somewhat important report a 2% one-year reduction in energy per unit of output (median). • Plants that rate sustainability as minor importance or not important report a 0% one-year reduction in energy per unit of output (median). What would a 4% cost reduction mean to your plant?

2011 MPI Manufacturing Study, survey of U.S. and international plants, The MPI Group, 2011.

mpi sustainability insight

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Energy Visibility — Getting the Bigger Picture Many manufacturers don’t comprehend just how variable energy costs can be — or how to manage those costs strategically. Why? Usually because energy costs aren’t tracked to specific manufacturing lines, equipment, or products (e.g., which line consumes more energy, and why?). The result is few manufacturers have made significant reductions to their energy usage. Four out of five manufacturers (81%) report annual energy reductions of less than 10%. Yet manufacturers near or at world-class status in sustainability are far more likely to have reduced energy by 10% or more — 35% of these top performers vs. just 13% of those furthest from world-class status.1

Annual reduction in energy per unit of product output 12.6%

18.8%

35.1%

81.2%

87.4%

All manufacturers

Furthest from world-class sustainability <10%

64.9%

Near or at world-class sustainability

10% or more

Source: 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study

How did the world–class manufacturers succeed? It probably has something to with the fact that these firms also are more likely to have: • A sustainability strategy, • Talent to drive sustainability efforts, and • State-of-the-art business systems and equipment to support sustainability initiatives. How close to world-class sustainability is your firm?

2011 MPI Manufacturing Study, survey of U.S. and international plants, The MPI Group, 2011.

mpi sustainability insight

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Energy Visibility — Getting Granular As manufacturers gain visibility into their energy usage, they learn more about where and why energy is consumed. But that knowledge doesn’t come by watching plant meters on the wall; it’s earned by closely monitoring how energy is used at specific locations within a facility, and understanding why that energy is used there (i.e., what is the energy draw related to specific products?). Measurements also help to understand how energy-improvement efforts are impacting consumption by product, line, or machine. Unfortunately, few organizations have measurement systems in place to assess return from their overall sustainability efforts (within which energy consumption is critical). In fact, only 17% of manufacturers have advanced measuring systems and capabilities: “regular monitoring and review of company-specific metrics by CEO and senior staff” or “regular monitoring and review of company-specific metrics by CEO and senior staff and transparency and clarity throughout the organization.” More than one-third of manufacturers (37%) have no measurement systems or reviews.1

What best describes your measurement system for reviewing return from sustainability efforts? No measurement system per se or reviews

37.0%

Ad hoc monitoring of basic measures and ad hoc reviews

30.3%

Company-specific metrics monitored regularly by operations staff

15.5%

Regular monitoring and review of company-specific metrics by CEO and senior staff

11.7%

Regular monitoring and review of company-specific metrics by CEO and senior staff and transparency and clarity throughout the organization

5.6%

Source: 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study

Paper manufacturing (40% of companies) and primary metal manufacturing (24% of companies) were most likely to have advanced measurements systems and reviews. Computer and electronic product manufacturers (10% of companies) and chemical manufacturers (11% of companies) were least likely to have advanced monitoring systems.2 How good is your system for measuring (and improving) energy consumption?

2011 MPI Manufacturing Study, survey of U.S. and international plants, The MPI Group, 2011. 12011 MPI Manufacturing Study, survey of

20 or more companies responding in the industry.

mpi sustainability insight

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Energy Visibility Leads to Informed Decisions It’s a major step forward for a manufacturer to understand plant-level energy consumption, and how changing combinations of products, lines, and machines can boost plant performance and profitability. Yet most manufacturers don’t take the next step, and miss the opportunity to optimize energy use across all facilities, products, and assets. A dedicated energy strategy can drive an organization to achieve aggressive targets — and deliver meaningful bottom-line results. Twenty-five percent (25%) of manufacturers don’t have a sustainability strategy, while another 28% describe their strategies as “generic strategy with little or no functional involvement and buy-in.” A “company-specific strategy” is in place at roughly half of manufacturers, with only 12% reporting “full functional involvement and buy-in.” Even among large manufacturers (more than $100 million in revenues), an energy strategy is missing at 21% of firms.1

Sustainability Strategy % of companies No strategy

24.5%

Generic strategy with little or no functional involvement and buy-in

28.3%

Company-specific strategy with some functional involvement and buy-in

35.3%

Company-specific strategy with full functional involvement and buy-in

11.9%

Source: 2011 Next Generation Manufacturing Study

Does an energy-strategy strategy make a difference? • 42% of manufacturers with a company-specific sustainability strategy and full functional involvement and buy-in report annual energy reductions (per unit of product) of 10% or more; • 29% of manufacturers with a company-specific sustainability strategy and some functional involvement and buy-in report reductions of 10% or more; • Just 9% of manufacturers with a generic sustainability strategy and little or no functional involvement and buy-in report reductions of 10% or more; and • Only 6% of manufacturers with no sustainability strategy report reductions of 10% or more. Is energy data driving strategy and change at your company?

2011 Next Generation Manufacturing Study, The MPI Group, 2011.

mpi sustainability insight

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Energy Management and Operational Excellence Energy information is a new kind of business intelligence — one that that can impact not just energy consumption, but improvement of operations and asset management as well. Unfortunately, many manufacturers still lack business systems that adequately support their energy-intelligence needs. Twenty-two percent (22%) of manufacturers don’t have business systems and equipment to support world-class sustainability, and another 22% report that their business systems and equipment are “inadequate for current requirements.” Just 8% of firms describe their business systems and equipment as “state-of-the-art and able to provide long-term support” for sustainability efforts.1

Systems and Equipment to Support World-Class Sustainability % of companies None

21.8%

Inadequate for current requirements

21.7%

Adequate but limited to current requirements

35.3%

State-of-the-art and able to provide long-term support

7.6%

Source: Next Generation Manufacturing Study

The ability to share, analyze, and act on sustainability information correlates with world-class performance in sustainability, as well as overall operational excellence: • 72% of manufacturers with state-of-the-art business systems and equipment supporting sustainability report that their companies are near or at world-class sustainability, vs. just 2% of manufacturers with no sustainability systems and equipment. • 33% of manufacturers with state-of-the-art business systems and equipment report value-add per employee of more than $125,000, vs. just 20% of manufacturers with no sustainability systems and equipment. Are your business systems leveraging sustainability intelligence for operational gains?

2011 Next Generation Manufacturing Study, The MPI Group, 2011.

mpi sustainability insight

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Asset Management and Energy Management Go Hand in Hand Managing manufacturing assets – facilities and equipment – is a priority for every manufacturer, especially those hoping to efficiently produce high-quality goods. Well-managed assets reduce operating costs, improve the life of capital investments, and drive overall manufacturing improvement. Yet just 24% of manufacturing plants have effective asset management applications and/or programs in place, according to the MPI Manufacturing Study.1 Better plants — i.e., those reporting significant progress toward or fully achieving world-class status — are more likely to have effective asset management: 31% have effective asset management applications and/ or systems vs. 18% of manufacturers with only some or no progress toward world-class status. Findings on sustainability shine an even harsher light. At plants near or at world-class status and where sustainability is important, 43% have effective asset management applications and/or systems in place.

World-Class Manufacturing, Sustainability, and Asset Management (% of plants) Furthest from world-class and sustainability is at best only somewhat important

Furthest from world-class and sustainability is important or highly important

Near or at world-class and sustainability is at best only somewhat important

Near or at world-class and sustainability is important or highly important

Effective asset management in place

16.8%

22.4%

43.1%

Effective asset management not in place

83.2%

77.6%

56.9%

Source: 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study

How well are you managing plant assets?

2011 MPI Manufacturing Study, The MPI Group, 2011.

mpi sustainability insight

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Energy Information Contributes to Manufacturing Strategy Manufacturing demand is growing for many industries and in many parts of the world. This good news means that manufacturing executives now face strategic decisions of where to place production of new orders within their plant networks. Some order-allocation decisions are easy, with proximity to customer markets often trumping other attributes. For other decisions, executives will evaluate capacity (plant room to make more product) and capability (plant performance). A plantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s energy efficiency also should be a component of that decision-making. Some 19% of U.S. plants report annual energy decreases per unit of product of more than 5%, while 44% of plants report no change or an increase in energy consumption. Not surprisingly, plants with the largest energy reductions are also more likely to report better operational performances:1

Annual Change Energy Consumption Per Unit of Product

18.7% 43.3% 38.1%

% of plants Decreased consumption more than 5% Decrease consumption 0.1% to 5% No change in consumption or an increase Source: 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study

Where does energy rank on your order-allocation priority list?

2011 MPI Manufacturing Study, The MPI Group, 2011.

mpi sustainability insight

ÂŠ 2012 MPI Group Inc.

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Building a Business Case for Broader Sustainability Just a few years ago, sustainable business practices used to be considered “nice” things to do — admirable, but not business necessities. Yet sustainability is now seen as a path to profitability — helping organizations to differentiate themselves from competitors and generate real savings (energy costs, material costs, and regulatory fees and fines). The 2011 Sustainability and Innovation Global Executive Study, conducted by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan Management Review and Boston Consulting Group (BCG), found that “a substantial portion of companies are now seeing the need for sustainable business practices and are deriving financial benefits from these activities.” Based on 2,874 responses from commercial enterprises, the study found that 31% of companies have developed a business case or proven value proposition for addressing sustainability, and 31% are already “Harvesters” — i.e., their companies are profiting from sustainability activities.1 These findings shouldn’t surprise executives, especially since many “green” initiatives reflect traditional cost-awareness activities. Best practices for sustainability, identified by participants in the 2011 Next Generation Manufacturing, include: • “Company regularly focuses on waste reduction and cost reduction through product redesigns and construction simplification, i.e., manufacturing using fewer parts through design modification and commonality of parts strategies.” • “Continue to focus on reducing the consumption of electricity through new technology.” • “Product design that incorporates product reuse and recyclable components.” • “Regular reviews of energy and utility usage, and developed plans for reductions.” • “We use recycled and recyclable materials as much as possible and have programs in place (including goals with associated metrics) to reduce not only our material and labor costs, but also our energy consumption and total waste per unit of production.”2 More than half of manufacturers participating in the NGM Study (59%) said that sustainability was highly important or important3 to their success over the next five years, up from 35% of manufacturers in 2009.

Sustainability & Innovation Global Executive Study, Massachusetts Institute of Technology Sloan Management Review and the Boston Consulting Group, January 2012.

2011 Next Generation Manufacturing Study, The MPI Group, 2011.

Rated 4 or 5 on a scale of 1-5 where 5 equals “highly important” and 1 equals “not important.”

mpi sustainability insight

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Getting in Front of the Competition Increasingly, customers of all kinds — business-to-business or business-to-consumer — want to know how their suppliers are making and delivering goods. Are the products sustainable? How much energy was consumed during production? How much of the product’s content is recycled material? What is the product’s carbon footprint, from supplier to delivery? Unfortunately, many manufacturers aren’t prepared to answer these questions. Almost three-quarters of industrial plants have none of their products documented with carbon footprints, according to the 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study. Yet some manufacturers are documenting their products’ carbon footprints, and the percentage of plants documenting such data has risen over the last three years. It’s clear that some organizations see market opportunities in documenting footprints — while others are being forced to move in that direction.1

Products with Carbon Footprints Average

Median

Percentage of plant products with documented carbon footprint — current year

11.2%

0.0%

Percentage of plant products with documented carbon footprint — three years ago

8.3%

0.0%

Source: 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study

For example in the UK, the Carbon Reduction Commitment (CRC) Energy Efficiency Scheme is a mandatory cap and trade scheme proposed to cut carbon emissions by 1.2 million tonnes of carbon per year by 2020. The CRC targets large public and private sector organizations, in aggregate responsible for around 10% of UK emissions. These large organizations — electricity use of more than 6,000 MWh per year in 2008 — will be required to measure the emissions from energy supplies for which they are responsible. Approximately 3,000 organizations with an energy spend greater than £500,000 are taking part in the program, which began a three-year introductory phase in 2010.2 How well-documented are your products’ carbon footprints?

2011 MPI Manufacturing Study, The MPI Group, 2011.

Carbon Footprint Ltd. and the Department of Energy & Climate Change, UK.

mpi sustainability insight

#10

www . mpi - group . net

MPI Sustainability Insight

Marketing Energy-Management Success Are customers aware of your organization’s sustainability practices? If so, does that awareness impact their buying decisions — i.e., are customers willing to spend more for more sustainable products and processes? Communicating your company’s sustainability successes — such as energy-management improvements — can be a powerful tool in building stronger relationships with “green” customers. But to be credible, sustainability success must be quantifiable, with documented energy-management improvements. Savvy customers are eager to find out more about your company’s journey toward greener, more sustainable processes, in part for altruistic reasons, and in part to learn how their operations or lives can become sustainable. Sharing details of your energy-management program can create a win-win situation for all. Many industrial facilities are just beginning their journeys toward more sustainable processes. According to the 2011 Manufacturing Study, plants have reduced energy per unit of product output by just 1% (median) and 3.7% (average) in the past year. But a few facilities are ahead of the sustainability curve — almost one-quarter of plants have reduced energy consumption by 10% or more.1 How does energy management in your operations compare to others in your industry? And do your customers know?

Change in Energy Consumption per Unit of Product Output Industry2

Average

Median

All industries

-3.7%

-1.0%

Chemical Manufacturing

-7.5%

-5.0%

Plastics and Rubber Products Manufacturing

-5.2%

-2.4%

Primary Metal Manufacturing

-0.4%

0.0%

Fabricated Metal Product Manufacturing

-2.4%

-0.3%

Machinery Manufacturing

-2.3%

0.0%

Computer and Electronic Product Manufacturing

-3.9%

0.0%

Electrical Equipment, Appliance, and Component Manufacturing

-6.4%

-2.0%

Transportation Equipment Manufacturing

-4.9%

-4.5%

Miscellaneous Manufacturing

-4.0%

-2.0%

Source: 2011 MPI Manufacturing Study

2011 MPI Manufacturing Study, The MPI Group, 2011.

Industries for which 15 or more plants reported.

mpi sustainability insight

#11

www . mpi - group . net

www.sap.com/contactsap

© 2013 SAP AG or an SAP affiliate company. All rights reserved. (YY/MM) No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or for any purpose without the express permission of SAP AG. The information contained herein may be changed without prior notice. Some software products marketed by SAP AG and its distributors contain proprietary software components of other software vendors. National product specifications may vary. These materials are provided by SAP AG and its affiliated companies (“SAP Group”) for informational purposes only, without representation or warranty of any kind, and SAP Group shall not be liable for errors or omissions with respect to the materials. The only warranties for SAP Group products and services are those that are set forth in the express warranty statements accompanying such products and services, if any. Nothing herein should be construed as constituting an additional warranty. SAP and other SAP products and services mentioned herein as well as their respective logos are trademarks or registered trademarks of SAP AG in Germany and other countries. Please see http://www.sap.com/corporateen/legal/copyright/index.epx#trademark for additional trademark information and notices.