Electronics Recycling Supplement--Realizing Our Best Intentions

In today’s technology-driven business landscape, life cycle management is as critical to productivity as paying the electric bill. Deploying the right equipment to the right place at the right time is less than half the challenge; confidential data is so pervasive, and the aggregate quantity of hazardous materials contained in today’s electronics so immense, that in our global economy the IT sector has also inherited an obligation for the responsible management of its infrastructure on behalf of virtually the entire planet.

The many new laws for privacy, environmental protection and corporate governance have served to sharpen our sense of these obligations. Fines for improper disposal of obsolete electronics can easily run into hundreds of thousands of dollars. A privacy breach can cost a company tens of millions. And a governance failure can dim the luster of a company’s crown jewel—its brand reputation. While senior management, the markets and lawmakers are sensitized to the downside of sloppy asset disposition, IT managers too often fail to insist on true accountability for the process and, so too, fail to realize the upside that rigorous change management can deliver.

These upside opportunities are framed by persistent gaps between our intentions and actual outcomes in the field. Most of us understand that obsolete electronics do not go in the Dumpster, but the Silicon Valley Toxics Coalition estimates that 80 percent of electronic scrap nominally sent for recycling by U.S. companies is in fact dumped in developing countries. Few would argue that such outcomes are acceptable. But some nonetheless accept obscure, disparate refurbishing processes that in reality are not accountable for delivering quality results consistent with their best intentions and their companies’ best interests.

Further, in a recent audit of desktop systems from a large Midwestern insurance company contracting with a leading outsourcer to erase hard drives, data was found on more than 30 percent of the drives examined—a finding that has been repeated over hundreds of such audits for privacy-regulated companies.

For IT asset management to be truly accountable, we must "see it, know it, prove it." That is, the process must incorporate transparency, quantitative metrics and a reconcilable audit trail. These things cost money, but that’s the upside. We’re already spending the money—lots of it—on fragmented procedures, huge delays and lost productivity, redundant handling, unnecessary overhead, under-utilized assets and under-managed risk.

From an enterprise perspective, big savings can accrue from a disciplined, accountable change-management implementation that establishes clear policies and procedures, centralizes processes and streamlines administration with efficiency and complete accountability. At its most productive, it is one part asset management, one part inventory management and one part IT finance.

The controls required to keep bad things from happening also make it possible for technology change management (TCM) to consistently deliver value through reduced cost of ownership, increased return on asset value and greater responsiveness to fluctuations in user demand. Productive TCM implementations share common elements.

The first is a focus on the user’s responsibility and less concern for the technology itself. For several years, hardware has been relatively powerful compared to common software requirements, making possible longer life cycles and lower ownership costs. Realizing this gain requires emphasizing reuse and developing capabilities to support it.

Second is the holy grail of asset management—inventory control. Every asset represents value and risk and must be accounted for at all times. Reconciliations must occur each time assets change hands. There must be a real-time view of the inventory during every phase of the asset life cycle. Losses, when they occur, must be identified quickly. Finally, critical performance metrics must be identified, reported and trended to allow for continuous improvement. Though the right metrics will be unique to each company, the goals and variances must be explicit, particularly for compliance procedures like data destruction.

It has been all too easy to accept the unacceptable when an unreliable data destruction process uses a method "approved" by the CSO’s office or when we receive a "certificate of destruction."