Mech 425 Green IT Project: ECM Feedback[edit source]

Approdia Page Feedback[edit source]

  • The page looks great, well communicated, the only problem i see is that the literature review might be linked wrong. I am not sure if your lit. review and ECM are two different documents or the same.

Great page - very nicely communicated and comprehensive; someone with no prior knowledge of the concept will have no problem getting a handle on it. A couple of things needed some slight re-wording; I changed those directly (no important content was touched). The inclusion of the pilot project and the telework associations was great.

Same question as the above person regarding the lit review; are you just refering to the References section in your ECM? You might want to consider including your sources in a separate section on your Appropedia page, with the addition of some links so that someone searching for related information can find your page – this will facilitate the sharing of information.

Overall, nicely done.

--BD 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a couple points: What exactly do you mean between as conditions are more favorable for the employee? Also, the wording is weird under limitations when you discuss career advancement.

Looks good though.

--A.Dacho 03:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

ECM Feedback[edit source]

  • The "Cost of Internet per Employee" is that just the total cost of internet services for your company divided by the total number of employees? And units might be nice. (i.e. [$/person])
  • A little bit more explanation on the input page would be good. The last input "block" where "phone", and "keyboard" are listed, what are they? are they capital costs of hardware to set up a home office? or something else?
  • Consistency on units might be nice as well. Doesn't really effect the out come but just makes it nicer to read through. (i.e. make all cells that denote cost formatted as "currency")
  • Maybe note somewhere other then just on the "projected Savings" page, the total capital and operating costs of the equipment
  • Not sure what is going on but the IRR formula doesn't see to be kicking back a number
  • Are the plots of "Total CO2 savings" and "Oil Savings" cumulative or just net per year?
  • Could add a plot of net and cumulative money savings

On your INPUT page, you write in the first person (“we have assumed”, etc.) – I suggest using the third person uniformly across your file as it sounds more professional (you did it when listing most of your assumptions, just not all of them).

The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY page can use a bit of work. I also suggest including some figures in there; it’s nice to see one’s economic benefits illustrated. The IRR did not display a value, only an error.
Nice summary at the bottom of the PROJECTED SAVINGS page.

The graphs of the environmental savings projected over 10 years is great on the GRAPHS page, but what about the financial savings?

--BD 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

This is perhaps a finicky thing, but on your input page, you could probably indicate whether the Cost per square foot, cost of internet, cost of training etc. are monthly or annual costs.

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this, but I think the reason your IRR calculation is resulting in error is that all of your cash flows are positive (no way that Present value could = 0).

Looking at your Executive Summary page, it doesn't make sense to me that your Net Cash Flow is the same every year. It seems from what I have read so far that there would be capital costs in the first year (phones, internet setup fees, etc.) that would not be repeated in future years.

One more comment about the Executive Summary page: I don't think that in general you can calculate Payback time by dividing Year 1 Net Cash flow by Baseline Net Cash Flow.

I noticed on your calculations Projected Savings page that many of your cell references link to a different worksheet. I'm not sure if this is just a problem with my computer, but the values on the Projected Savings page are not changing when I update the Inputs page.

In the Costs box, it appears that "Direct Costs" and "Total Cost to Employer per Telecommuter" are always equal. Are both rows necessary?

I actually don't know anything about this, so just don't pay any attention if this is wrong. It strikes me that $6000 of increased employee effectiveness due to telecommuting might be a bit optimistic.

Cell D35 on the Projected Savings Page, "Cumulative Net Cash Flow" for the Baseline Year, you are referencing the Total Cash Outflow cell rather than the Net Cash Flow cell. I think it should be the latter.

When doing your Discounted Cash Flow, you need to find the Present Value going all the way back to year 0. For example, for your Cash flow of 10088.82 in Year 4, you need to discount at 3.26% for 1 year, 2.06% for 1 year, 0.49% for 1 year and 0% for one year. See the example in File:ECM006 travel - videoconferencing Dec11.xls.

Looks pretty good! --Dloates 13:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Watch printer margins! "to and fro" should be "to and from"

Link the projected savings and graphs tabs as references You have a "change" marker with round trip commuting. Is this special or why is that there? Is the telecommuter salary per year? (say so) Training Costs should be in $$. What is home office this a title? Should the monitor phone etc be in $? It might be nice to have a title on the side or above each of the four groups. Also, watch your outline formatting on the bottom line of the boxes.

Projected Savings
Colour coding would be nice. Same with a formula next to the inputs, ie lable the different lines A,B,C=A*B, etc. It would make your spreadsheet more clear. What is Marginal Heating/Cooling? It's not linked. Same for Subsidization of employees, home internet subscription etc. If these can be input, there should be a link to the inputs tab. If not, where do you get the reference from? An explanation of the page would be useful at the top. Total cost to employer should be a sum not just linked directly above. One time costs need to be linked somewhere where the user can input that number. Total benefits per telecommuter should be in allcaps and should be the sum of D20:D27. It might be a good idea to have the inputs that you are taking from the input page actually on the projected savings page but highlighted in a don't change colour and linked to the input page. It would make it easier for the person going through to follow.

Why are the direct costs on the ECM twice? Same with under the COSTS heading?

Enviromental impact, looks good, format isn't consistent with above. You should add in your final numbers at the bottom of that section too though!

The conclusions look nice.

  • you didn't calculate the irr? or NPV

Executive Summary
-capitalize title "ECM Focus" maybe summary would be better? -graphs would be good. -you might want to add in your parameters in a story like fasion but with auto updating links.

-label axis and main title

Assumptions and References
-why is part of the Ref section in orange?

Overall it looks good!

--A.Dacho 04:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Overall[edit source]

  • Really well done. assumptions and references clearly stated the concepts of the ECM are well communicated. The executive summary needs a very small fine tuning and the addition of a plot or two will really help the end result. Great work.

Very nicely done! Just some small touch-ups and it should be good to go.

--BD 21:36, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey! Looks really good. You've done some good research. I just fixed one spelling mistake directly. Other than that, the only question I had was whether the rent quoted in the Caswell case study was monthly (the figure looks like it is a monthly figure). Overall great job and well communicated. --CB

Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.