13 Jan 2009
by ryanin Ann Arbor, News, Technology, Work Tags: automobiles, electric, electric cars, employers, future, hybrid
This week is the North American Auto Show, the annual circle jerk of the automotive superpowers, as they demonstrate the latest and greatest in Detroit. Despite it precarious status as the center of the automotive world, Detroit still holds sway over the direction of the industry and, if this year is any indication, the future is electric. From the Chevy Volt, to the Cadillac Converj, to the new Prius, to an unknown Daimler electric, full-electric cars are destined to hit the market very soon.
At almost half the total operating cost of a standard vehicle (at 12,000 miles per year), these are financially attractive vehicles. But, what would it mean to actually power one? In today’s world, filling up is a task done once, maybe twice, a week for the average commuter.
But, with electric, you have to top off daily, if not more than that. The expected range for a Volt upon release is somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 miles per charge. If I live 25+ miles from work, I have a dilemma; round trip exceeds my round-trip range. Let’s do a mental experiment…
Fast forward 5 years. It’s now 2014. 25% of the vehicles on the road are full-electric (yes, it’s optimistic. Deal). In 2006, there were 250,851,833 registered vehicles (wikipedia). Assuming a zero growth rate, that means that 62,712,958 cars will be full-on electric in 2014 (it’s an experiment). Ignoring distribution, socio-economic factors, et al, this means that each state has to deal with 1,254,259 vehicles likely purchased for daily commuting. (Ok, not Arkansas, but you get the idea.) In reality, vehicles would be concentrated around metropolitan areas, large employers, and ideological centers (Berkeley and Ann Arbor).
Which leads to my question. Assume that I, the conscientious consumer and commuter, purchases one of these Messianic vehicles to drive to and from my job 25+ miles away.
How do I charge it while I’m at work?
As a potential driver/charger/employee, I propose the following:
- Let me pay. Wire up spots, chip my badge and let me scan-in every day. I park at the first available spot, scan my badge at the terminal for my parking spot, and you bill me via payroll for the energy I consume.
- You pay. Wire the lot, let me park wherever I can and plug in. Since it costs less than $1 to charge the car for a 40 mile trip, you eat the sub-$30 per month cost to get me to work, making up the difference in “parking fees”.
- We share. You up the parking fee to cover the under $360/year/vehicle cost to charge my car. Since only 25% of driver need the power, you can balance the cost against the drivers who don’t suck down the electric, normalizing the costs.
Which ever method you choose, there are a few things you need to consider now.
- How will you measure the cost of charging electric vehicles for your employees (they’ll need it)?
- What is the value of your employees driving electric vehicles? Can you market or enhance your brand by demonstrating your commitment to non-fossil-fuel-based vehicles? Might that not be worth something?
- What are the tax implications for “fueling” your employees?
- If you compensate employees for business use of personal vehicles, what are the tax/legal implications of electrics?
- Do you have the systems or technology in place to accommodate the next generation of drivers? (I’m guessing no.) How fast can you accommodate them?
The heavily-electric world is being sold to your employees today. It will be your problem tomorrow. Are you ready?
05 Jan 2009
by ryanin Work Tags: administrative burden, FDP, research
My AD forwarded yet another article today (this one in Science Magazine) about the increased administrative burden placed on faculty and researchers. To quote:
A 2007 survey by the U.S. Federal Demonstration Partnership… found that 84% of faculty in the United States believe that the administrative burden associated with federally funded grants has increased significantly in recent years. Most notably, the study indicates that of the total time that faculty devote to research, 42% is spent on pre- and post-award administrative activities. [Here's the report]
First, this is a perception that is widely shared up and down the research structure. Central offices, research assistants, and researchers alike are being asked to complete more paperwork, submit to more reviews, and respond to more and deeper questioning than ever before. And, with good reason.
Headline-making conflicts of interest and the need to protect subjects, both human and animal, and security concerns in a “post-9/11 world” (what a stupid phrase) demand that regulations tighten to prevent or discover abuses.
My entire job revolves around this issue. The work done building and integrating systems is all done in the name of reducing the need for faculty and staff to redo duplicate forms, assemble printed proposal packages, or manage a paper trail that fills an entire floor (no joke). Our mantra is “do no harm.”
But, here’s our challenge. I can get hundreds of staff people, from research administrators to central office folks, to volunteer their time for months to design a form or automate a business process. What I can rarely get, and never with any commitment of time or extended effort, is a faculty member to do the same.
6,000+ faculty members are represented in the report linked above. 84% believe that their burden has increased in recent years. Yet, over two projects and 4 years, we’ve had to conscript, at most, a dozen faculty members to work with (not “on”) our projects. Of that dozen, none of them are willing or able to commit to more than an hour a quarter specifically to a project.
And so, my plea and promise. I promise, we really do hear your concerns and we really do want to reduce your burden. But we need your help. Not just at my institution, for this is a problem I’ve heard from many other institutions. When we ask–and we’ll ask–we’re not there to disrupt your life. We’re not there because we picked your name out of a hat (in fact, a senior administrator probably pointed us your way with a “they’re always helpful” sort of comment). We’re there because we have questions about how you want to use the system, how you work on a day-to-day basis, how you think the best way could be.
If you don’t give us your time, we understand. But the contract goes both ways; you, by not giving of your time, have to understand that we did our best with the information at hand. We are not psychic. We do not see what happens in your office all day long; we suspect neither does your research administrator, but they’re the only ones giving us information.
So, please, please, when we show up in your office (and we will take the time to come to you), give us a chance. Consider that your time is spent not only in furthering your own work, but the work of hundreds of other researchers around campus. I pledge to not waste your time, to deliver the best product I can, and to credit you every chance I get.
We’ll even get you a T-shirt.
19 Jul 2007
by ryanin General, Rants, Work
I just deleted a draft of a post because it was related to my job. Yes, this is my personnel space and yes, I should feel open to say what I want.
But I didn’t. I had a long, well-linked post about a vendor related to my current work. It’s not the vendor we work with, it’s not even a company my group officially has a relationship with. But, and here’s what stopped me, people at my institution do have relationships with the company. I may cross paths with these people. The grants world isn’t that small. You see where this could lead.
I hate that I deleted it, even though it was probably the smart thing to do. Best case, I was on record with a flamer of a post. Worst case, I’d have dealt with that post for years.
God I hate politics.
02 Apr 2007
by ryanin Technology, Work
David Heinemeier Hansson, creator of Ruby on Rails and partner in 37 signals, went nuclear on the official 37s blog in a profanity-titled post called You’re not on a fucking plane (and if you are, it doesn’t matter)! – (37signals). Now, I’m not a prude (feel free to search this blog or come out drinking with me), but leading a post on your corporate blog with the f-bomb is, what’s the word, dumb.
But I’m not here to lament David’s immature way of titling a post, but to take issue with the content of his post. Essentially, David argues that there’s no need for offline components to web applications because connectivity is so ubiquitous. Which is true, if you live in a major metropolitan area, such as David does. But here in the uncharted backwaters of suburban Detroit (Ann Arbor), there’s no such thing as ubiquitous WiFi. Sure, I could pay another $80 a month to get an EVDO card, but do I really need that? Not really, certainly not for business.
From a business standpoint, I know that my customers (professors and researchers) like to go to places that, ding, no one has been before. I wonder if they’ve laid lines that can handle 10mbps internet connections or cell tower that carry EVDO. I’m going to guess not. So, when I want my customers to interact with the web application we’ve built for them to get their research reviewed, how do they do that without an offline component? The answer now is paper, fax, and time.
So, why is 37 signals being so shortsighted? Apollo. Yep, that old chestnut called competition. Can’t access your Basecamp account from the airplane? Build your own app that let’s you update your project information offline and then synch that data when you do connect to the Internet. Sure, it’s a stretch but the threat to 37 Signals and RoR is there.
As one of the commenters to the 37s post said, “Distortion field at work here, folks.”
RSS
Twitter