Sustainable Innovation Management

By Joseph Pomponi. Email: jpp5251@vt.edu

The methodology of the survey followed the procedures listed. There were 2 waves of surveys that were mailed; 500 companies per state involved in the study for a total of 3,000 copies of the survey. An online version was available as well. The survey questions were divided into specific sections: business information, wood materials used in the company, wood products supplier selection, and wood products supplier evaluation. Companies were randomly drawn from a 3^rd party website generating SIC codes based upon the following categories: general contractors, home builders, construction companies, building contractors, and home improvements. The 1^st wave was sent out the week of March 2^nd, 2020 then a reminder to fill out the survey was sent out the week of April 1^st, 2020. Due to COVID-19, a decision was made to wait to send out the second wave of surveys until the week of May 25^th, 2020 since it was not known if companies were doing business during that time period. The survey was closed July 6^th, 2020 and no further responses were recorded. 59 responses were received over the course of the 2 waves of surveys and the online version. There was an issue of nonresponse bias due to lower response rate, however since the 2^nd wave had similar numbers of responses to the 1^st wave, it can be inferred the 2^nd wave is representative of the population. Due to this low response rate, phone calls were made to companies based off of the list of companies generated from the 3^rd party website. 46 companies were contacted for a total of 105 responses combined with the survey. Selected questions were asked from the survey on the phone calls to gain further information. Results from the combined phone call and survey responses were analyzed.

The results gathered from the survey mainly lined up to what was seen in literature. Many of the companies responding had 1-50 employees indicating that they were not a big company. Also, many companies responded that they worked more on single-family projects as opposed to multi-family and commercial projects; the number of projects most companies reported they worked on was less than 5. Most companies do not work in multiple states, and a lot of them responded that they weren’t aware if the products they purchased were manufactured in their own state, as well as not knowing if they purchased in-state.

Figure 1. Number of Responses for if the Company Mainly Purchased in or out of State

The majority of the responses indicated that the company was not sure where they purchased their wood products. This indicated that there was a lack of knowledge regarding where the majority of wood products came from. While there were a decent number of responses regarding in-state purchases, the out of state purchases combined with the unknowns meant that the majority of companies were unsure of where their products came from or just outsourced their purchases. The issue is the fact that construction companies could purchase from a location that is closer to them, thus reducing costs such as transportation and handling costs so they could improve their bottom line, but if the companies did not know where their products came from, then it would be hard to reduce these costs.

Figure 2. Number of Responses for if the Company is Aware if the Products they Purchased are Manufactured In-State

There is a difference between knowing if a product is manufactured within the state and knowing if the product was purchased within the state. However, companies were also not aware if the products they purchased were manufactured within their own state. The results show the need of knowledge of where wood products are coming from as well as where products are purchased in order for local supplier to have an impact in the market.

Figure 3. Means of Supplier Factor Ranking (1 Lowest; 9 Highest)

The factors listed in figure 3 were asked to be ranked from 1 to 9 in terms of importance to the company with 1 being the lowest priority factor and 9 being the highest priority factor. The most important factors were: price, quality, lead time, and customer service. Relationship was another important factor but it wasn’t as important as the other factors listed. These were the things that construction companies were looking for in their suppliers. The top factors were also seen in literature often. While it would be hard for suppliers to focus on all of these factors, they could differentiate themselves using 1 or 2 factors in order to appeal more to the construction company. For example: a supplier could have a very high-quality product that has a lead time that is flexible with the construction company, this would probably be at a higher cost than other products but it would be worth that cost to the company if it arrives on their schedule and is a good product. It would be better for suppliers to focus their efforts on improving 1 or 2 of these factors, so that their products and services could appeal to more construction companies.

By Juan Gonzalez. MS candidate, email jjgoco02@vt.edu

The current market of Thermally Modified (TM) is still affected by the lack of performance information and clear specification of advantages and limitations of the material over competing products. Such information is needed so new potential users like architects can make informed decisions regarding material selection. The objective of this article is to know the level of awareness of TM wood and if there are differences between the size of architectural businesses and awareness on TM wood.  Espinoza (2015), where he studied marketing strategies from the perception of TM wood producers. His results showed that the awareness of TM wood across the United States (US) is very low.

The survey and sample
A survey was recently conducted by a team of Virginia Tech researchers to study the perception of the TM wood U.S market, with focus on east coast architects. Besides marketing perceptions and awareness of TM wood, the survey also included questions related to the mechanical performance (bending, modulus of elasticity, and surface hardness, shrinkage), and visual aspects (color) of TM wood.

The sample frame included companies under NAICS 541310 and 541320 (Architectural Services and Landscape Architectural Services) subscribed to the Commerce of Chamber on the most populated counties in the East Coast of the U.S. The survey was distributed using paper and web versions. The standard managing survey procedures were followed. Once the survey period was closed, all returned questionnaires were revised for accuracy and content reliability.

Preliminary Results
A total of 146 responses were obtained from the surveyed sample  (web and paper). Out of the total responses, 49 came from the paper survey and 107 from the web survey. These 146 responses correspond to 1.825%, from a population of 8,000. Out of the total responses, only 22 of the respondents answered that they have worked with TM wood products and continued the survey. With only 22 respondents indicating they worked with TM wood, the results limit the extrapolation of the conclusions and results toward the entire population. However, this is an indication that still there is little awareness of TM wood among the architectural community in the east coast of the United States.

Table 1 summarizes the results of the awareness of TM wood question by company size. Seventeen of the 22 companies that have worked with TM wood are considered small, 1 medium and 4 large.

Using a contingency analysis, we tested the hypothesis that awareness is dependent on the size of the business.

• Ho: Awareness is dependent of the company size
• H1: Awareness is not dependent on the company size

It was found that there is a statistical difference using a chi-square test (P-value < 0.001). Hence we concluded that smaller businesses are more aware of TM wood than larger ones.

Reference
• Espinoza, O., Buehlmann, U., & Laguarda-Mallo, M. F. (2015). Thermally modified wood: marketing strategies of US producers. BioResources, 10(4), 6942-6952.

By Joseph Pomponi, Email: jpp5251@vt.edu

Sustainability in building materials is a concept of using more biodegradable materials for construction projects. Sustainable development is described as enhancing quality of life and allowing people to live in a healthy environment and improve conditions for present and future generations (Ortiz, Castells, and Sonnemann 2009). “The improving social, economic and environmental indicators of sustainable development are drawing attention to the construction industry, which is a globally emerging sector, and a highly active industry in both developed and developing countries” (Ortiz, Castells, and Sonnemann 2009). To illustrate these concepts, the life cycle assessment helps evaluate the environmental load of products and processes. “The life cycle inventory (LCI) involves collecting data for each unit process regarding all relevant inputs and outputs of energy and mass flow, as well as data on emissions to air, water and land. This phase includes calculating both the material and the energy input and output of a building system. The life cycle impact assessment (LCIA) phase evaluates potential environmental impacts and estimates the resources used in the modeled system” (Ortiz, Castells, and Sonnemann 2009). Essentially, these analyses help with the life cycles of certain building materials and how these materials can impact the environment during their life in use and after they are able to be used for their purpose. The idea is to promote the use of more sustainable building materials such as wood, and engineered wood products as opposed to products such as steel and titanium. The wood materials tend to be more friendly to the environment, and helps towards reducing energy consumption. Carbon emissions are important to consider when deciding the sustainability of a building materials, as well as the life cycle of the certain material.

“Wood has many positive characteristics, including low embodied energy, low carbon impact, and sustainability. These characteristics are important because in the United States, slightly more than half of the wood harvested in the forest is used in construction” (Falk 2009). There is a difference in energy consumption when mining for materials needed to make products such as steel and other metals. Wood is seen to be easier to harvest and takes less energy to construct projects. The energy consumed in the construction of a steel-framed house in Minneapolis was around 17 percent greater than for a wood-framed house (Lippke et al. 2004). Below is a table discussing the designs of houses in Atlanta and Minneapolis and the difference of energy consumption between steel-framed and wooden-framed.

Table 1. Environmental Performance Indices for Above-Grade Wall Designs in Residential Construction (Lippke et al. 2004)

^b % change = [(Steel frame – Wood frame)/(Wood frame)] X 100

Carbon plays a huge role in the earth’s ecosystem and in climate change as well. It is viewed as a negative impact on ecosystem sustainability. Forests play a huge role in balancing the Earth’s carbon cycle. Essentially, forests and other vegetation removes the carbon in the atmosphere through the carbon cycle. The process converts carbon dioxide and water into sugars for needed for the tree growth as well as releasing oxygen into the atmosphere. Approximately 26 billion metric tonnes of carbon is sequestered within standing trees, forest litter, and other woody debris in domestic forests and another 28.7 billion tonnes in forest soils (Birdsey and Lewis 2002). Different materials have different carbon emissions, table two shows carbon emissions of common building materials and materials used in construction.

Table 2. Net Carbon Emissions in Producing a Tonne of Various Materials (Falk 2009)

^a Values are based on life-cycle assessment and include gathering and processing of raw materials, primary and secondary processing, and transportation. ^b Source: EPA 2006. ^c From Bowyer et al. 2008; a carbon content of 49% is assumed for wood. ^d The carbon stored within wood will eventually be emitted back to the atmosphere at the end of the useful life of the wood product. ^e Derived based on EPA value for concrete and consideration of additional steps involved in making blocks.

From the table it can be seen that the carbon emissions of traditional building materials such as concrete, steel, and aluminum are greater than wooden framing material and medium-density fiberboard. The wooden materials also have a negative value of the near-term carbon emissions meaning the materials are more beneficial to the environment in terms of carbon emissions. Wood products have a low level of embodied energy compared to other building products and because wood is one-half carbon by weight, wood products can be carbon negative (Bowyer et al. 2008). Wooden building materials have a place for use in the construction industry. Wood materials in the end help with issues such as “green-building” and being more sustainable. These materials also have lower carbon emissions and in turn can potentially help reduce energy consumption of a building. Of course, fossil fuel-based products and metals are not renewable whereas in the forest resource is renewable. It is important for the wood products and forestry industry to have proper management of the forests to have sustainable harvesting for materials needed in the construction industry.

 Works Cited

• Birdsey, R. and G. Lewis. 2002. Carbon in U.S. Forests and Wood Products, 1987–1997: State    by State Estimates. USDA Forest Service, General Technical Report GTR-NE-310
• Bowyer, J., S. Bratkovich, A. Lindberg, and K. Fernholz. 2008. Wood Products and Carbon  Protocols: Carbon Storage and Low Energy Intensity Should be Considered. Report of    the Dovetail Partners, Inc. www.dovetailinc.org.
• Falk, B. 2009. Wood as a sustainable building material. For. Prod. J., 59(9), 6–12.
• Lippke, B., J. Wilson, J. Perez-Garcia, J. Bowyer, and J. Meil. 2004. CORRIM: Life-Cycle Environmental Performance of Renewable Building Materials. Forest Prod. J. 54(6): 8-19
• Ortiz, O., Castells, F., Sonnemann, G., 2009a. Sustainability in the construction industry: a          review of recent developments based on LCA. Construction and Building Materials 23          (1), 28–39