Phase 5: Design Green Performance Framework (GPF)

The final phase brings together all aspects into the GPF. Each EPI is translated into a measureable unit with appropriate measurement scale and weighting factor. This section will

72 APPENDIXC. GREEN PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT

Figure C.5: The performance indicators (adapted from [8]).

of the framework will be done in the next section. This is done due to the complexity and size of the framework.

Measurement scale

The measurement scale for each EPI is generally based on a point award system, where a specific performance level is awarded with a certain score. Developing an consistent mea- surement scale with normalizing outputs facilitates more comparable assessment results across different regions [23]. Acquiring insight in the performance of the EPIs is achieved by comparing results of other industries, and the use of theory explained by the National Re- search Council (US) [1]. The difference between qualitative and quantitative EPIs requires different measurement scales to measure the performance.

The qualitative measurable indicators involve different maturity levels, which are based

C.2. ASSESSMENT FRAMEWORK 73

on ISO 9004:2009(E). The ISO-standard provides guidance in the formulation of a self- assessment method and thereby indicating the use of the different maturity levels [9]. As the ISO-standard is formulated for quality aspect and not environmental aspect, the ISO- standard organization in the Netherlands is contacted. Their response however was ”cur- rently no similar maturity rating model is available for the ISO-14000 serie”, and therefore the ISO 9004:2009(E) is applied. The maturity levels range from level 1: base level till level 5: best practice. The criteria given for the higher maturity levels can assist the organisation to understand the issues it needs to consider and to determine the improvements required to reach a higher level of maturity. ISO 9004:2009(E) explains a step-by-step method to define each maturity level [9].

The quantitative measurable indicators involve a ten point measurement scale, which is based on the established baseline performance level and input from other industries. Through the use of operational metrics, it is possible to define a baseline performance level and normalize the user data of a shipyard, and thereby acquire insight in the environmental performance. The measurement scales are ranked from low performance to high perfor- mance, where the lowest performance level (1) indicates that the shipyards performance is low regarding that specific indicator and the highest score (10) indicates that the shipyards performance is high regarding that specific indicator. The measurement scales are estab- lished by using the average, minimal and maximum value determined for the baseline per- formance level. The measurement scales correspond with an exponential decay, whereby the multiplication factor depends on the established baseline performance level, indicating a higher performance difference between score nine and ten than score one and two. Due to the complexity of measuring certain indicators, specific employees or partner organisations are contacted for supporting information. In example, RCN is an waste consultant with more specific information about the processing and distribution of waste. Their input is important for the formulation of measurement scales where little to no information or data is available.

Weighting and scoring

The above explained measurement is not sufficient enough to compare the performance of shipyards, as the performance of a single indicator needs to be added with the other indicators in order to determine a final performance level for a shipyard. Even if all the scores in the rating system are similar, application of different weights of importance for each point may change the overall score [23], [51]. To calculate the weighted sum, individual weighting coefficients can to be assigned to indicate the relative significance of the different indicators under consideration. The National Research Council (US) [1] explains different methods for determining specific weights to EPIs. The complexity is to determine if it is required to make a specific indicator or category more important than the others (i.e. the hazardous waste produces more emissions then non-hazardous, the EPI may have a higher weighing factor). However, the assessment focuses on an objective assessment of the performance and thereby make no distinction between the various aspects. Furthermore, the difference between the type of shipyards influence the applicability of EPIs measureable (i.e. a repair & conversion yard has a whole other material use pattern then newbuilding yards), and

74 APPENDIXC. GREEN PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT equation used for scoring the EPI is shown below (Equation C.1 [1]). Adding the score for each underlying EPI results in a total score for both the categories energy and pollution.

W eighted EP I score = EP I score(%) ∗ W eighting f actor(%)

100 (C.1)

Visualisation

The outcome of the assessment is visualized in three separate figures. Both the perfor- mance of each qualitative EPI and quantitative EPI are shown in two clustered column fig- ures. The height of the column indicates the maturity level of the qualitative EPI and the performance level of the quantitative EPI. The third figure visualizes the qualitative perfor- mance against the quantitative performance, in order to search for patterns and relations between the indicators. Examples of the three figures are shown in Figure C.6.

Figure C.6: Visualising the performance with left the qualitative EPIs against the quantitative EPIs, middle the qualitative EPIs and right the quantitative EPIs.