CSBG INNOVATION PROJECT 200708 - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 21
About This Presentation
Title:

CSBG INNOVATION PROJECT 200708

Description:

Resale of salvaged materials. October - Fifth deconstruction. Actual ... No deconstructions meant no salvage materials to sell. ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:31
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 22
Provided by: csbgC
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: CSBG INNOVATION PROJECT 200708


1
CSBG INNOVATION PROJECT 2007-08
  • Seattle Conservation Corps
  • Deconstruction

2
Performance Against Goals
  • Goal To train staff and homeless individuals in
    effective techniques for building deconstruction
    and to conduct a feasibility study on the risks
    and benefits of warehousing and marketing of
    salvaged materials as a possible training and
    revenue generating line of business for SCC.
  • NPI goals 1.1 C (obtained living wage job with
    benefits) by providing training for new living
    wage employment opportunities and 1.2 A obtained
    pre-employment skills/competencies required for
    employment and received training program
    certificate or diploma) by providing homeless
    individuals with new paid training opportunities
    that will enhance their ability to find living
    wage jobs).

3
Performance Against Goals
  • Actual
  • SCC was unable to provide sufficient on the
    job training in deconstruction to adequately
    prepare a participant for employment in that
    field, however, SCC continues to research
    opportunities and strategies in Green
    Employment which will, over time, result in
    improved employment opportunities for our
    participants.

4
Performance Against Goals
  • Progress
  • Provided 56 hours of on the job training in
    deconstruction to participants through the
    Innovation Grant
  • Completed one deconstruction and reclamation of
    lumber prior to the start of the grant
  • Collected promising information on potential
    Green Jobs and training in this area
  • Developed new partnership with Seattle Public
    Utility staff committed to environmental
    initiatives and developing new ways of doing
    business
  • Developed new partnership with the Re-Store, a
    non-profit business dedicated to the reuse and
    recycling of building debris
  • Established contacts within Seattle Department of
    Economic Development with interest in Green
    Jobs and how SCC can fit into that initiative

5
Performance Against Schedule
  • Plan
  • February - Feasibility study complete
  • March Training as indicated by feasibility
    study. Second deconstruction
  • June Third and fourth deconstructions.
    Resale of salvaged materials
  • October - Fifth deconstruction
  • Actual
  • Feasibility study applications to the Daniel J.
    Evans School of Public Affairs at the University
    of Washington and Leadership Tomorrow were
    declined
  • Feasibility study not completed
  • Focus of project changed to Green Jobs employer
    and training survey completed in March
  • Deconstruction opportunities did not appear as
    anticipated. First real deconstruction
    opportunity came up in August without advanced
    notice

6
Performance Against Budget
  • Budget
  • The majority of the budget was earmarked for on
    the job training activities. Anticipated help
    with the feasibility study from one of two no
    cost sources did not materialize.
  • .
  • Because deconstruction opportunities were not
    available the majority of the budget was not
    spent.
  • No deconstructions meant no salvage materials to
    sell.
  • We did not receive support for feasibility study
    from either organization resulting in loss of
    salvage material to market

7
Planning
8
Project Planning
  • Manager was responsible for the grant application
    and the original plan.
  • Support at that time was reserved but possible?
  • Was project well defined from beginning?
  • Project was fairly well defined but depended too
    much on outside sources and unforeseen factors.
  • There were multiple meetings with the operations
    staff before the 1st deconstruction.
  • A lot of time was spent waiting for houses to
    become available as that was the largest budget
    item. This made following a plan or changing the
    plan difficult.

9
Was the Plan the Right One?
  • It was a good plan
  • Addressed a City of Seattle need to develop
    deconstruction contractors
  • Good media coverage and opportunities
  • Provided good work training opportunities
  • The plan was overly optimistic
  • Underestimated
  • Number of deconstructions available
  • Amount of training that could be provided with
    such limited funds
  • Level of difficulty for our program participants
  • Unable to meet benchmarks due to lack of support
  • Looked for alternate training opportunities
  • Continued roadblocks

10
How Effective Efficient Was RD?
  • Identifying solving technical problems
  • Issues not apparent until after the first
    deconstruction
  • First trainer was not a good match
  • Unanticipated lack of suitable houses for this
    project
  • Lack of suitable houses for deconstruction meant
    lack of salvage materials to market
  • Estimates execution
  • Unable to spend budget due to lack of suitable
    houses
  • Budget would not have been sufficient for five
    deconstructions
  • Because of our limited experience with this type
    of project the budget estimate was too low and
    outcomes overly optimistic

11
How Was the Project Managed?
  • Consistent attempts to get buy-in from staff
  • Many Operations discussions about appropriateness
    of work for SCC
  • Changes Changes were not made soon enough.
  • Waited too long for other factors to come together

12
Quality Assurance Support
  • More deconstruction projects required to gain
    experience and improve quality of work
  • To continue deconstructions we need extensive
    training to support the environmental goals and
    challenges encountered
  • More training would encourage support within our
    staff and partners

13
Marketing
  • Project Launch
  • First deconstruction went well. Partners from
    Seattle Public Utilities, Seattle Parks
    Department and the community were present. Media
    covered the event.
  • Inability to move forward due to lack of houses
    and lack of support in the organization

14
Outcomes
  • Proposal was brought to operations staff early in
    process
  • Many meetings and discussions uncovered serious
    concerns from operations staff about the
    difficulties of this project
  • It was important to actually deconstruct a
    building so we could accurately assess the scope
    of the work

15
Outcomes
  • After the first deconstruction support for the
    program dissolved
  • Staff expressed concerns that the work was too
    difficult and too dangerous
  • Site issues made the project more difficult than
    it might have been
  • The trainer was not a good fit

16
Outcomes
  • Lack of additional houses to deconstruct stalled
    the project until August when supervisors were
    committed to other projects
  • During the wait for suitable houses other
    partnerships developed that will be useful
  • Seattle Public Utility waste reduction
    personnel
  • Re-Store deconstruction and salvage experts
  • Department of Economic Development - Green Jobs
    Initiative

17
Key Lessons
18
What Went Right
  • Completion of one deconstruction and reclamation
    of lumber prior to the start of the grant
  • Collected information on potential Green Jobs
    and training in this area
  • Developed new partnership with Seattle Public
    Utility staff committed to environmental
    initiatives and new ways of doing business
  • Developed new partnership with the Re-Store, a
    non-profit business dedicated to the reuse and
    recycling of building debris
  • Established contacts within Seattle Department of
    Economic Development with interest in Green
    Jobs and how SCC can fit into that initiative

19
What Went Not So Right
  • Problems
  • Lack of support in the organization
  • Lack of interest
  • Concern the project was not a good fit for SCC
  • Lack of training made staff feel unsafe
  • Difficult to complete with current staffing
    expertise and resources
  • Lack of suitable project houses
  • Obstacles
  • Hazardous materials
  • Difficult access
  • Did not get anticipated help with feasibility
    study
  • How did team respond to problems?

20
Recommendations
  • Next Steps
  • SCC will continue to pursue projects offering
    training opportunities in Green Job employment
    sectors
  • SCC will continue to explore deconstruction work.
    Perhaps hiring someone with a construction
    background and strong interest in waste
    reduction, reuse and recycling specifically for
    deconstruction work
  • SCC will continue to build on our partnerships
    with Seattle Public Utilities whose leadership in
    environmentally sound practices has offered us
    training opportunities in the past including the
    Green Grid Project and the Rain Garden projects
  • SCC will build on our relationship with the
    Office of Economic Development to pursue City of
    Seattle projects that will enhance our
    participants employability in the Green Jobs
    sector
  • SCC will pursue available funding to enhance our
    ability to offer outside training to participants
    interested in future employment in Green Jobs

21
Questions Comments
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com