14499-冷链物流-effects benchmark and audits

Follow up report
on effects of benchmarking and auditing
at the end of the project
Introduction
One of the deliverables of the ICE-E project is an Overall Audit Report (D2.8) that reports on the effects of the benchmarking opportunity and effects of the auditing of the 25 cold stores.
The information that forms the basis for this report was gathered from the partners and cold stores involved in the auditing of the cold stores via a questionnaire. The feedback from them was put together and classified under the headings below.
1.THE AUDITED COMPANY
a.Positions of people involved in audits
The position of the person/people that on behalf of their company were involved in the process of auditing and follow up.
-In 84% of the audits, the Owner himself (or depending on the situation the Managing Director) did play a role.
In almost 1/5 of these cases, it was just the owner that was involved without any support of an employee. This was reported from the rather small companies.
In 4/5 of the cases the owner got assistance from one of the specialists of his company like an energy manager, fresh pasta maker, company engineer, meat preservation specialist,
technical director, the chief technologist, etc
-The cold store manager was the person that assisted the owner/MD in some 25% of the situations. Of course the cold store manager plays a central role and was in certain cases the initiator of the auditing process as he is carrying the responsible for the operation including the energy usage of the store. In a few cases it was handled just by the cold store manager. It’s obvious that the commitment and involved of the owner and/or cold store manager is crucial to the success of the audit and energy efficiency in general. Size of the company seems to determine the level of people involved.
b.The way they got involved; role of benchmarking
The vast majority of companies involved in the audits took part in the survey and ticked the box to demonstrate their interest in a professional audit. An Italian company volunteered after participation in an ICE-E seminar.
In the southern part of Europe where personal relationships seem to be an important factor in a company’s decision to take part in the audit, 2/3 were directly approached by the partner responsible for the auditing. The benchmarking did not play an important role in these situations. Some of the audited companies were already in the process of increasing energy efficiency and saw the free audit as an opportunity to measure the current situation and to get advice on further improvements.
For the majority however, the benchmark made them aware of the fact that they could volunteer for an audit which they subsequently did. This category seems to be eager to measure energy efficiency and an average benchmarking score was for them a result that needs to be improved.
c.Opinion on benchmarking and their results
The results vary a lot. Some of the reported opinions:
-The benchmarking is a useful tool, especially for small companies with limited budget.
-Useful but with the comment that the situation throughout Europe is too different to compare (technical and non-technical issues).
-Benchmark made them aware of audits and the work of ICE-E (reported several times).
-Benchmarking appreciated with the aim to improve the position of the company.
d.Concrete motives to participate in audit
There are several reasons mentioned and several combinations:
-Energy saving is the reason mentioned in almost all cases.
-For roughly 60% the audit is basically about saving money which makes sense for a commercial organization that is focused on returns.
-Environmental considerations were also often mentioned. Such companies appeared to have
a clear policy on Green and Sustainable issues and have a person such as an Energy Manager
looking into energy efficiency.
-Another important reason is to get an independent view on the energy efficiency of the refrigeration systems or associated equipment.
-The skilfulness of the ICE-E consortium.
About 85% of the audited companies had no doubts at all and were very determined to participate in the audit once they understood they were selected. For some the fact that it was free of charge was very attractive. Persuasion was not needed at all; an explanation was convincing.
In 100% of the cases the audited companies indicated to appreciate the implemented audit and the exchange of ideas on the results.
e.Role and attitude of company’s refrigeration contractor
The role of this supplier is an interesting one in this project as they could see this as a “threat” o r “defamation” of their position.
Here we see a wide variation in their attitude:
-Most of them are positive or very positive and contributed proactively as they understand that they had the same goal as the audit team, to improve the plant. They believe energy
efficiency of a system is a very fundamental aspect. They are open and cooperative.
-Others were helpful but saw the audit as competition to their services (in some cases competing against auditing services they themselves had previously offered). Often the
contractor was just paid to keep the plant running and their interest was to keep the number of call outs at the minimum. This is a critical issue. If a contractor has a fixed price contract to maintain a plant they will try and minimize the work they need to do to maximize profits.
This is not conducive to efficiency as plant is operated so that it is reliable but not necessarily operating at its most efficient point. Some contractors had convinced the manager for that
reason to run the plant in a certain way which was not the most efficient option.
-In roughly 20% of the audits, the auditors did not meet nor had they contact with the refrigeration contractor. Sometimes there was no contractor.
-In one case in Southern Europe the company assigned a new, local refrigeration contractor who became a real expert on this particular system by working with the ICE-E team.
f.Skill level of contractor and their relationship with the company
The judgment about the skills of the refrigeration contractor vary from
-Very good/quite good 35%
-Good 30%
-Satisfactory 20%
-No basic knowledge 5%
-Not applicable 10%
It has been reported that there was sometimes a serious difference between the different levels of knowledge in the contractor’s company. The boss can be excellent; the technicians that execute the work just moderate.
To qualify the relationship between contractor and audited company is the subject of personal impressions and may depend also on the recent work carried out by the contractor.
According to the auditors of the ICE-E project, the relationship is in almost all cases described as good and qualified as “complete trust” and “considered as one of the crew”.
Often cold stores worked with local technicians (mainly for maintenance contracts) and specialized service on call.
2.TECHNIQUE OF THE AUDIT
plexity to carry out the audit and possible logistical issues
In 68% of the cases the auditors reported certain difficulties in executing the audit: -Especially the accessibility of the evaporators and sometimes condensers was a big challenge in most of the situations and makes data collection very tough.
It’s required to climb on ladders to platforms. In some cases it was only possible to measure some temperatures on the evaporators and in a few cases (stacker stores) it was not possible to accurately measure mass flows.
-Often no safe tools were available for reaching the heat transfer surface. Air coolers were very high and hard to reach.
-Other challenges were management issues. For example, lack of good internal coordination in the company, lack of time from the company contact.
eful equipment that was missing for the audit
In 56% of the cases the partners report that more/other equipment would have been helpful.
- Mainly more automated data logging and more advanced data acquisition equipment was missing to make work lighter.
-Also advanced door opening equipment or equipment to measure more doors would have been helpful
-Sometimes the wish was expressed that the company should have had more details in general on control of the plant.
-Scaffolds.
c.Quality of the logging system and possible improvements
In 20% of situations the logging system was qualified as very good and recently updated. Good and accessible remotely by the contractor.
In approximately 20% the logging equipment was not good or in extreme cases such as in one company there was no logging system at all.
However in most cases the logging system was reasonable but ideally needed to be changed or improved in certain aspects.
We report some of the comments:
-Logging system good for temperatures in rooms but not for refrigeration system.
-Good system for refrigeration but did not log at short enough intervals.
-System could be better integrated given the different parts of the facility.
-Complex system. To reduce logging interval a software expert was needed.
-No possibility of exporting the data.
-Dedicated energy meters for each system/compressor would be an improvement.
d.How long did the audit take and if longer what was the reason?
Different approaches were used by the auditors.
Distance and travel issues played a role as many audits were carried out in locations that were of considerable distance from the auditor's base.
-The auditor in Eastern Europe made several visits in a period from 3-4 or even 4-5 weeks.
This totalled 7-8 days per facility.
-Another audit took a period of 2-3 weeks on and off. This could have been carried out in less time but it was the very first audit and worked as a learning process.
-From Southern Europe we most audits took place over a total period of 4 weeks mostly 3 or 4 days at the premises.
-If the auditors had to travel far, the audit was carried out over one period of 1 week. More time would have been ideal the auditor reports but it was too complicated to return.
- For products like for instance potatoes audits were carried out twice (one during product pull down and one during stable operation) as there was a big difference in operation of the refrigeration plant throughout the year.
It seems that 2 visits of 3-4 days on the spot itself was very practical. On top of that auditors used some 4-6 days to guide the company on the requests, drafting the report, etc, etc.
C. INPLEMENTATION OF THE AUDIT
a.Suggested investments, amounts and response
In 100% of the cases, the auditors made suggestions for improvements that required investments. It proves the need for and success of the ICE-E project. There is sufficient space for improvement of refrigeration equipment.
Some concrete examples.
- A rather new facility was advised to invest Euro 4000 to save 148.000 kWh annually.
Implementation took place almost immediately.
-Another facility had to invest Euro 81.000 to achieve an energy saving per year of 152.000 kWh. No decision was made within the project timescale and the final decision depends on
the view and ambition of the owner on when he will sell off his company.
-Store in Italy with several rooms was recommended to invest about Euro 15.000 for evaporator fan switches and larger heat transfer surface evaporators.
-Yet another one, to improve monitoring and control system, replace condenser, modify electrical wiring of compressor, improving floor insulation.
-Improve insulation in general of freezer and cooler.
In many cases the auditors and/or audited companies are still obtaining data from equipment suppliers to make the ROI calculations.
It proves that the period after the audit was often too short to have results on implementations (and the real energy savings) to be reported in this document.
In almost all cases (92%), the audited companies were very positive about implementing the proposed changes. Recommendations were (highly) appreciated.
In hardly any case there was resistance against the recommendations so we cannot report on the major arguments against the investment. The arguments against are mostly practical like: -Improving insulation would require the cold store operation to stop which is just not feasible.
-Training of own staff is needed before installing monitoring equipment.
-Sometimes the ROI is not attractive enough for the company.
b.Finalizing implementation
The majority of the implementations are not yet finalized. Often the changes that are most urgent or easiest to implement have been done.
Many times more quotations are required to take a good decision and in-depth internal discussions have to take place before a final decision can be made. Sometimes these are long procedures or other factors such as the how busy the cold store or managers are can delay implementing changes. In certain cases, the investments are postponed till (more) budget is available.
Often companies are not really in a hurry as their business goes on as usual and does not depend on yes/no implementation. The recommendations can be implemented at any time.
c.Meeting expectations and willingness to pay for a similar audit
The results of the audit, the analysis and investment calculations have met in all situations we know the expectations of the audited company. In over 50% of the cases, the process of asking offers and calculating the ROI is not yet finished.
Most companies are so positive about the audit that we believe they would be willing to pay for a similar audit. Most probably this has to do with the professional approach of the ICE-E auditors and the result in terms of potential energy saving.
Larger or international companies would have been prepared to pay as that is their expectation. They are used to hire specialists for assistance.
In one situation (cold store of a food processing company) it was reported that the company would not pay for it as the potential saving of the cold store was relatively small compared to the total energy usage of the plant.
Other audited companies would have been prepared to pay for an audit as well but they would have like to be able to guarantee the energy savings. A chance on energy saving is not good enough which proves one of the principles behind the ICE-E project. Once cold store operators are comfortable of the audit outcomes, they are willing to invest in the consultant/engineer to investigate and the equipment to achieve that cost reduction.
d.Requirement of changes in behaviour
Approximately one-third of the individual reports speak about a change in attitude that is needed to be (more) successful in energy saving.
Auditors report on:
-More discipline in the day to day operation and obey the “golden rules” in cold stores like closing doors of freezers and docks, measuring product temperature at intake, check
refrigeration equipment regularly, etc.
-In the same line, to respect and execute the protocols that many of the audited companies have on handling of products in the cold store and more energy efficient behaviour more
accurately.
Although everybody is expected to know these rules, these suggestions were well received. The fact that it was reported by outside specialist may have greater impact on the workers.
Although the auditors did not report a need for changes in attitude within companies this was investigated more fully in the non technical barriers work. This was more detailed and spent longer examining ways in which the cold stores were managed.
e.Social barriers and how to overcome
In the majority of the cases there were no social barriers reported. There seem to be two reasons for that:
-If the owner himself was involved in the process of auditing and implementation, it seems to progress much more easily to get things done and get the support of engineers and workers.
-In the international companies or those that were positioned in the top of the logistics market, it is common to improve operations and companies are involved in a variety of
quality control processes.
The reported social barriers:
-Sometimes internal interactions that slowed down the process or prevented actions.
-
-In one case a barrier was diagnosed in the communication between the facility manager and the cold store workers like lift truck drivers, pickers and staff at the unloading docks.
D. ANY OTHER FEEDBACK
Some or the auditors supplied additional feedback we like to report:
-In all cases there were some very obvious methods to save energy (e.g. keeping doors closed, air extract from cold rooms, holes in doors) but the operators did not do anything about
them (even though they knew they were an issue).
-There were some issues that were relatively simple to work on e.g. lighting (simple to count number of lights and work out heat load on room, although not so simple to determine
overall impact on cold store). Most operators could work on these issues by using the simple or complex ICE-E models.
-There were then more complex issues around the operation of the refrigeration plant that required more skilled input. On a simple level most cold store operators could ask their
contractor to check superheat and sub cooling and correct these. Also some contractors
could provide quite detailed information on the operation of the plant and advise
modifications. However, contractors only seemed to advise on the operation of the
refrigeration plant and did not look the heat loads on the plant or try and reduce them. This seems to be a real failing and resulted in quite large savings being missed.
-In addition many operators did not seem to fully trust their contractors or companies selling energy efficient equipment. They had a problem finding a truly independent source of
information and this is where most people seemed to appreciate the audits.
-Unlike the energy audits of buildings, the audits of individual cold store facilities and their refrigeration plants are not yet sufficiently popular in Central Europe. Hence, the ICE-E
activities contributed to call the attention to this important instrument for improving the
energy efficiency and environmental friendliness of the sector and the national economy as a whole.
E. CONCLUSIONS
In summary, we list the main conclusions of this follow up report.
1.In more than 80% of the audits, the Owner or Managing Director was involved in the auditing
process. In 4/5 of the cases the owner had support from a specialist of the company. The
cold store manager was the other person that played an important role. It seems that the
size of the organization determines the level of the people involved in the auditing process.
2.The majority of the companies became involved after filling out the benchmarking survey.
They understood the saving potential and /or ticked the box and volunteered. In Southern
Europe the personal relationship between auditor and company was an important factor.
3.The opinions on the benchmarking were positive. It was seen as a useful tool and made them
aware of the work of ICE-E and the audit opportunity.
4.Some 85% of the participants had no doubts when they were selected to be audited and
100% of the audited companies appreciated the implementation. The reasons to participate were a mixture of: saving energy, reducing costs and protect environment. On top of that we hear the skilfulness and independency of ICE-E team as arguments.
5.The role and attitude of t he company’s refrigeration contractor was in general positive to
very positive although sometimes the ICE-E work was offered by them to the company
before but was then declined. In 25% of the audits no contractor was involved in the process.
6.In 85% of the audits the skill level of the contractor was seen by the auditors as satisfactory
to very good. The relationship between company and contractor was often described as one of “complete trust”.
7.In 68% of the cases, the ICE-E auditors report certain difficulties in executing the audit.
Often no safe tools are available to access the evaporators and/or condensers. Other
challenges were management issues like lack of good internal coordination in the company.
8.In 60% of the audits the partners report that certain helpful equipment was absent. Mainly
more automated data logging and more advanced data acquisition equipment was missing to make work easier.
9.The logging system was qualified as very good and recently updated in 20% of the situations.
In another 20% is was just not good and all other cases it was reported as reasonable but could ideally be improved or changed to make the systems more effective in the daily work.
10.Different approaches were used by the auditors. It seems that 2 visits of 3-4 days audit was
very practical which means about 8 days was assigned on the spot to each audit plus 4-5 days to guide them on quotations, the report etc.
11.Regarding suggested investments and amount of investment, in 100% of the cases, the
auditors made suggestions for improvements that required investments. Therefore there is a significant opportunity for improvement of refrigeration equipment. In almost all situations the companies were grateful for the recommendations made. No real resistance against the investment as such have been reported.
It proved that the period after the audit was often too short to have results on
implementations (and the real energy savings) to be reported in this document.
In many cases more quotations were required to take a good decision and in-depth internal discussions have to take place before a final decision is taken on the investments.
12.The results of the audit, the analysis and investment calculations have met the expectations
of the audited companies in all situations. Most companies were so positive about the audit that we believe they would be willing to pay a fair amount for a similar audit.
13.Approximately 30% of the individual reports indicate that a change in attitude within the
company is required to be (more) successful in energy saving. More discipline in the day to day operation and to obey the “golden rules” in cold stores like closing doors of freezers and docks, measuring product temperature at intake, check refrigeration equipment regularly, etc
14No major social barriers have been reported. Especially when the owner is involved in the process, things go smoothly. In international companies with internal systems and
procedures it was also relatively simple to carry out audits. However, in some instances
internal interactions sometimes slowed down the audit process or prevented actions. A
barrier was diagnosed in the communication with the staff who actually operated the cold store (e.g. fork lift truck drivers, maintenance operatives, packers/pickers).。