andreas vogel, sap research th, 2008...fleet managers business value fleet fuel consumption building...

SYSTEMATIC THOUGHT LEADERSHIP FOR INNOVATIVE BUSINESS

Green 2.0

Project Overview

Andreas Vogel, SAP ResearchFebruary 15th, 2008

Green 2.0

© SAP 2008 / Green 2.0 - Overview – Andreas Vogel ,February 15th 2008/ Page 2

Table of contents

SAP Research

Today’s SAP offerings

Policy motivation for footprinting

Market motivation for footprinting

Economic input-output life cycle analysis

Architectural approaches and discussion

Environmental accounting

Green 2.0


SAP Research – be a world-class thought leadershippartner to SAP and SAP’s customers & partners

Pretoria Brisbane

Palo Alto

Montréal

ShanghaiSophia

Antipolis

Walldorf Karlsruhe

Dresden

Belfast

St.Gallen

Darmstadt

Campus-based Engineering Centers

SAP Labs-based Research Centers

Over 325 Researchers Worldwide

Cooperate with > 200 industrialand university partners

SAP Research managedgeographically and collaboratively

SAP ResearchAmericas and China

Prepare the groundwork for SAP’s future growth

by acting as SAP’s IT trend scout identifyingemerging IT trends

by researching and developing in strategicallyimportant SAP business areas as well as

by leveraging entrepreneurial inventive talent

Structure Mission

Green 2.0


Internal Strategy

Identify industry trends that need research andadvanced development

Work with various product groups for earlytechnology transfer

Serve as reviewers and advisors for variousproduct groups

External Strategy

Work with external industry and universityresearch collaborators to scout trends andcustomer requirements

Leverage North American and Chineseuniversities and industrial partners

Work with key startup companies and venturecapital firms to identify cutting edgedevelopments

Green 2.0


Sensors

Data aggregation

Sensor networks

Energy andemission reductionOperationalefficiency

Emission tradingCompliancereporting andmanagement

Enterprise

Site

• Energy costsavings

• Risk reduction• Cost of

compliance

• Risk reduction• Cost of

operations

SAP Scope

ProcessEngineers

EnvironmentalEngineers

ComplianceManagers

Auditors

Executive Management

CommodityTraders

Risk Managers

FacilityManagers

FleetManagers

BusinessValue

Fleet fuel consumptionBuilding electricity use

TravelEmployee commuting

Direct Emissions Indirect Emissions

Environmental Management SoftwareSolution stack and today’s offerings

Green 2.0


Solution Stack

The basis for managing the environmental impact ofindustrial operations is the measurement of therelevant data, its aggregation and validation. Wedistinguish between direct and indirect emissions.

Direct emissions are measured directly at the sourceand SAP relies on a variety of partners to provide thesensor equipment and the measurement data.

Information about indirect emissions such aselectricity or fuel consumptions or miles flown can befound in companies’ ERP systems.

All the data points will be aggregated across theenterprise using the solution EnvironmentalCompliance offered jointly with partner TechniData.

Business value

We have identified three areas of business value:

Compliance – reducing the cost of compliancethrough automating the data collection, validationand reporting process (EnvironmentalCompliance)

Carbon Credits – are a financial asset similar to acommodity, Environmental Compliance and ERPTreasury create an inventory of allowances andcarbon emissions providing the insight andaccount platform for trading carbon credits whichcan be an important cost factor in production

Operational efficiency – analysis of operationaland emission data allow energy and emissionreduction (Energy Management Composite);saved energy and carbon credits can have a hugeimpact on the bottom line

Users and user interfaces

Many people with very different job functions areinvolved of managing the environmental impact of acompany. From a unsuitability point of view, it isimportant that they can continue to use the tools theyhave instead of being exposed to new solutions. Forexample, environmental dashboards will be shown inthe enterprise portal, environmental risk will behandled by the Risk Management Solution, ERPTreasury becomes the “book” for carbon credits, etc.

Green 2.0


Post Kyoto Discussion

Source: Wikimedia Commons.

Countries that have signed the Kyoto Protocol andRatified itRatification in progressNot ratified itNo position (not signed)

175 Parties have ratified the Protocol.36 countries and the EEC are required to significantlyreduce greenhouse gas emissionsNotable exception is the United States137 countries have ratified the protocol, but have noobligation beyond monitoring and reporting emissions

Green 2.0


The Kyoto situation

While the Kyoto protocol has been widely signed,there are two issues with the current situation

1. One of the largest CO2 emitters, the UnitedStates, has not ratified the agreement

2. 137 countries have ratified the protocol, buthave no obligation to reduce emissions, amongthem heavy CO2 emitters like China and India

This significantly limits the overall CO2 emissionreduction.

Post Kyoto discussion

The discussion about the Kyoto successor is infull swing. Two of the main, intertwined discussionpoints are

How to bring the US on board?

How steer developing nations, specificallyChina and India, towards reductions in theiremissions?

The discussion is often focused on the two largestCO2 emitters: USA and China. Some of thecommonly voiced arguments include the followingones (stated in an oversimplified form):

USA: we only reduce if China reduces.

China: we still need to develop our economy.

On the next page, we propose an investigation,using China as an example, on the ownershipand responsibilities of foreign of CO2 emissions.

Green 2.0


Who Owns China’s Carbon Emissions?

381 million tons

CO2 Imports CO2 Exports

1490 million tons

China’s 2004 CO2 footprint:4732 million tons

2004 net CO2 export was 1109 million tonsRepresenting 23% of China's total CO2 footprint:

Source: Tyndall Briefing Note No. 23 by Tao Wang and Jim Watson

Green 2.0


The imbalance of the carbon world

According to a study1 by the NetherlandsEnvironmental Assessment Agency, Chinaovertook the US as the world largest emitter ofCO2 in 2007.

China and more than 130 developing nations whosigned and ratified the Kyoto Protocol are underno obligation to monitor and to reduce theirgreenhouse gas emissions.

The rationale behind this is that the developednations should not deny the developing nationsthe same growth opportunities they themselvesenjoyed through the past decades.

However, a lot of the manufacturing industriesmoved from their original locations to thedeveloping nations which are offering a lower-cost workforce and often less stringentenvironmental regulations while the bulk of themanufactured goods are still consumed in thedeveloped world.

The Tyndall Briefing Note No. 232 studies andquantifies this phenomenon using statistical dataabout China’s economy of 2004. More than 1billion tons of CO2 representing roughly ¼ ofChina’s carbon footprint have been produced forgoods and services which have been exported.

Who owns the exported CO2 footprint?

A reasonable answer seems to be the consumerof the products, i.e. the importing nations.

Ownership comes with responsibilities

Let’s assume that the importing nations acceptthe responsibility for the CO2 emissions producedabroad. The economic models currently beingused to underpin the Kyoto Protocol and EU ETS3

are not equipped to address this situation.

SAP Research will be focused on investigatingnew economic models suited to handle thesequestions.

1 http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html2 http://tyndall.webapp1.uea.ac.uk/publications/briefing_notes/bn23.pdf3 European Union Emission Trading Scheme

http://www.mnp.nl/en/dossiers/Climatechange/moreinfo/Chinanowno1inCO2emissionsUSAinsecondposition.html

http://tyndall.webapp1.uea.ac.uk/publications/briefing_notes/bn23.pdf

Green 2.0


An Approach to Solving the CO2 Export

Exporting goodsand services

$$$

Goal:CO2 emission reduction

CO2 Exporter CO2 Importer

CO2 import tariff

Green 2.0


Policy discussion

SAP Research is contributing to the policydiscussion. As multi-lateral discussion haveshown to be very complex, we think that unilateralaction may be the next best choice. Such amechanism could be a carbon tariff which isimposed by countries with CO2 reduction goalson imports from countries without suchcommitments.

The amount of tariff could be established by theamount of CO2 emissions embedded in theimported goods and services and the marketvalue of carbon credits by the local carbonexchanges in the importing nations / regions.

Some associated such tariffs with protectionism.We argue however that such tariffs establish aequal playing field by establishing a common costfor carbon emissions on a global level.

Furthermore, we suggest that the tariffs are beingre-invested in the exporters industry with theobjective to increase the carbon efficiency ofthose operations.

IT Implications

Making this proposal work requires the accuratetracking of the carbon emission embedded ingoods and services as they cross regulatorydomain boundaries. This is a non-trivialinformation management and audit challengewhich can only be managed (at reasonable cost)with modern software solutions.

Below we outline approaches to architect anddeploy such information technology solutions.

Green 2.0


Creating a Carbon Label

Tens of thousands of suppliers

Problems encountered

Accuracy of models and measurements

Data aggregation across the supplychain

Green 2.0


1 http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/202 http://www.carbon-label.co.uk/pdf/methodology_full.pdf

Retailers’ rivalry

UK based retailer Tesco announced in early 2007that it plans to put carbon labels on all its 70,000food lines. Tesco is using a methodology calledLife Cycle Analysis, putting a greenhouse gascost on every element of a product’s move fromfarm to plate.

Wal-Mart announced to assess and manage theenergy footprint of its suppliers. It will be assistedby UK based Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP).

Mark&Spencer and other retailers made noiseabout similar activities.

UK based CarbonTrust has created aCarbonLabel2 for publishing the CO2 footprint ofconsumer goods.

Impossible dreams?

The company quickly realized that the statedgoals were very ambitious and started to rethinktheir plans.

Problems encountered

Chris Goodall of the Carbon Commentaryprovides an excellent analysis1 of the issues:

Accuracy of models and measurements

Data aggregation across the supply anddelivery chain

Research proposal and SAP value add

The first type of problems are related to naturalscience and measurement methodologies andmeasurement equipments. SAP does not haveexpertise in this area.

Managing large amounts of data withincompanies and between companies is a corecompetency of SAP.

We plan to investigate how existing SAPtechnology, specifically Supply ChainManagement and Product Lifecycle Management,can be applied to these problems and whatmodifications and extensions will be needed tohandle environmental parameters.

http://www.carboncommentary.com/2007/10/01/20

http://www.carbon-label.co.uk/pdf/methodology_full.pdf

Green 2.0


Building upon CarbonTrust’s Carbon FootprintMethodology

AssetsMethodologyModelsProcess maps

Proposed extensionsCreating templates for industries and / or classes ofproducts, e.g.

Food productsDrugsMotor vehicles (based on IMDS)

Consider operational phase in selected industries(fuel and energy consuming products and services)Extend beyond carbon footprint, consider wider rangeof environmental parameters(other air and water emissions,heavy metals, recyclability, etc)Software tools for managing andanalyzing process maps (acrossenterprise boundaries)

Source: The Carbon Trust

Green 2.0


1 http://www.carbon-label.co.uk/pdf/methodology_full.pdf2 Supply Chain Management3 Product Lifecycle Management

CarbonTrust defines the baseline

UK based CarbonTrust has announced thecreation of a CarbonLabel and has published theCarbon Footprint Measurement Methodology1.This paper sets the baseline for determining thecarbon footprint of goods and service.

Specifically, the paper provides a five stepmethodology as shown above. The key tool foranalyzing the footprint is the process map whichidentifies all the steps from raw materials tofinished products and the associated carbonfootprint of each step.

Opportunities to build on

The CarbonTrust methodology does not considerthe operational phase of products due todifferences in usage, e.g. bread vs. automobile,which would make it difficult to compare productsof different characteristics.

We propose the introduction of templates fordifferent classes of products (by industry). Weexpect a twofold benefit:

A more detailed defined template supportsthe accuracy and auditability of the carbonfootprint measurement and aggregation

It enables the consideration of the operationalphase for classes where it is appropriate andenables meaningful comparisons within theseclasses

Furthermore we would like to expand themethodology by tracking and aggregating otherenvironmental parameters such as air and wateremissions, heavy metals, recyclability.

Software Solutions

We are also interested in creating software toolsfor managing and analyzing process maps. Aparticular interesting aspect is the management ofthe process across enterprise boundaries.

On the one side we are investigating the retrofit ofexisting technology such as SCM2 and PLM3 for

such purposes. On the other side we areexploring the use of advanced, Web2.0 inspiredcollaboration technologies.

http://www.carbon-label.co.uk/pdf/methodology_full.pdf

Green 2.0


Snow White's (or Eve’s) Dilemma

Snow White’s question:To buy or not to buy?

It depends on:Time

Space

Average vs. dynamiccarbon label

Green 2.0


Snow White’s Dilemma

Snow White’s dilemma illustrates the complexityof the carbon label concept. Snow White’sproblem is to choose between an apple grownlocally (in California) and one from New Zealandfrom carbon footprint perspective.

Space dimensions

We assume that all parameters of the growingand harvesting the apples are the same in bothlocations. So the first and obvious differentiator isthe space dimension. Shipping an apple fromNew Zealand to San Francisco has a largercarbon footprint than shipping one from a nearbyorchard. So the decision seems to be clear.

Time dimension

Well, don’t rush to the check-out line yet. There isalso the time dimension to be considered. Whendo you buy the apple?

In the Northern hemisphere’s fall, your local applecomes straight from the tree to the producestore’s shelf.

But what happens when you buy the apple in thespring? Your local apple spend about half a yearin a chilled warehouse and the air conditioninguses a lot of energy with it’s (energy sourcedepending) carbon footprint.

Spring would be of course fall in the Southernhemisphere and the apple would come straightfrom the tree on to the ship and from there to thestore.

We now have the trade-off between the six monthstorage and thousands of miles transportationand the outcome isn’t that clear anymore.

Conclusions

Don’t buy apples in spring, buy seasonable localproduce.

Carbon footprints of goods and services arecomplex and dynamic.

Green 2.0


Total CO2/Environmental Footprint – CarExample

Design and Production Operation Recycling / Disposal

Designing a car is a multi-billion businessProduction processRaw materials (steel,aluminum, etc)Half-product (paint, plastics)Components (seats, tires)

Gallons of gasoline per mileCO2 from burning gasCO2 from producing anddelivering gas to car

ServiceParts (tires, batteries)

Recycling (steel, aluminum)Disposal (paint, battery, tires,plastic)

Green 2.0


1 http://greenmesh.com/2007/03/unraveling_the_hummer_vs_prius.php2 http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm

As Snow White’s dilemma illustrated, it is important toconsider all the dimension which may have an impacton the carbon footprint.

Hummer vs. Prius

Now, let’s have a look at another popular consumerproduct: the automobile. The debate of what is the“better” car is often reduced to a single dimension, themiles-per-gallon number.

There are two major issues with this approach. Thereis an opinion piece1 comparing the Hummer with thePrius which, while not scientifically investing the topic,certainly helps illustrating the issues.

Entire lifecycle

For a having meaningful comparisons of theenvironmental impact of products it is important tomeasure and aggregate the impact across the entirelifespan of goods and services. Important work hasbeen done by William McDonough and MichaelBraungart published in their book “Cradle to cradle”2

We see there three major phases:

Design and production

Operation

Recycling and disposal

The car example shown above illustrates this nicely.

Global warming vs. other environmentalimpact

The other important issue is to not limit the view onCO2 and Greenhouse gases. While it is useful to havethe public debate focused on these parameters, it isimportant to look at all the parameters which have anenvironmental impact.

Proposed research

We intend to study the following problems in thiscontext

Software support for tracking environmentimpacting parameters

A taxonomy for comparing different types ofenvironmental parameters

http://greenmesh.com/2007/03/unraveling_the_hummer_vs_prius.php

http://www.mcdonough.com/cradle_to_cradle.htm

Green 2.0


Economic Input Output-Life Cycle Assessment

Categorized the U.S. Economy into 491 sectorsMeasures the entire life-cycle of a product, from rawmaterials to recycling/disposalTraces the transactions along this pathTraditionally used to measure economic valueadded at each stepAdapted to measure environmental impact of eachstep

Wassily LeontiefNobel Prize 1973

HarvardMark II

Invented by Wassily LeontiefData obtained from U.S. Department of CommerceIn 1949 – One of the first economic modelsdeveloped using a computerContinues to be used for economic planning

Definition and Usage

Historic Background

Provide the environmental footprint of the“average” product per category, e.g. theaverage American car

Green 2.0


EIOLCA exampleGHG footprint of the average American car

Sector GWPMTCO2E

CO2MTCO2E

CH4MTCO2E

N2OMTCO2E

CFCsMTCO2E

Total for all sectors 1260 1060 114. 24.9 53.2

221100 Power generation and supply 375. 371. 0 0 4.51

331111 Iron and steel mills 137. 137. 0 0 0

484000 Truck transportation 117. 115. 0.179 1.61 0

562000 Waste management and remediation services 54.8 8.67 46.1 0.067 0

336300 Motor vehicle parts manufacturing 44.8 44.8 0 0 0

481000 Air transportation 35.0 34.5 0.044 0.372 0

331312 Primary aluminum production 27.4 9.24 0 0 18.2

211000 Oil and gas extraction 25.6 4.30 21.3 0 0

212100 Coal mining 23.5 1.56 21.9 0 0

336110 Automobile and light truck manufacturing 21.5 21.5 0 0 0

Green 2.0


GranularityThe biggest bang for the buck

Final Product

Across the phases of life cycle Along the supply chain

Green 2.0


Granularity is important success factor for carbontracking. On the one hand, there’s the danger ofover-engineering the system by trackinginsignificant details. On the other hand, there’sthe danger of becoming meaningless fro analysisby not measuring enough and working withaverages and estimates instead.

CO2 emissions which don’t have an overallsignificant impact don’t need to be tracked.Instead we propose keeping the tracking systemsimple and use average data, e.g. from economicoutput-output tables, for these data elements.

The critical question is where to draw the line.This requires a thorough analysis of thecomposition of the carbon footprint.

Lifecycle analysis

The first step is the analysis of the three steps ofthe lifecycle. As the schematic view abovesuggests the impact of the different phases maysignificantly vary on the type of product.

Supply chain analysis

As shown above at each level of the supply chainyou should identify the components and materialswhich contribute most to the carbon footprint. Theeconomic input-output are a useful tool for aninitial analysis.

The Carbon Trust’s methodology suggest to focuson the components and material which represent90% of the carbon footprint.

Green 2.0


800-pound-gorilla-driven approach

Supply ChainCollaboration Software

Supplier I

Supplier IV Supplier V

Supplier II Supplier III

ERP SCM

High-level architecture BenefitsLeverage existing SAP investments (SCM,SCM collaboration)Tightly coupled relationship betweensuppliers and manufacturer / retailersEnables proprietary SCM extensions forcompetitive advantage

Green 2.0


Centralized catalogueSoftware-as-a-Service (SaaS)

Manufacturer A

Manufacturer C

Manufacturer B

Supplier I

Supplier IV Supplier V

Supplier II Supplier III

Componentand materialcatalogue

Upload(env.) data

Query(env.) data

High-level architecture BenefitsMinimal impact on suppliers andmanufacturer

Business processIT landscape

Minimal deployment and maintenancethrough SaaS approachLow-cost deployment, no major investmentnecessary through SaaS approachNo master-data issues through singlecentralized databaseNo n x m connections necessary throughpublish-subscribe architectureStream-lined information sharing throughcomponent and material catalogue

Green 2.0


Example: automotive industryInternational Material Data System (IMDS)

Source: EDS

Industry-wide material and componentcatalogueAlready contains environmental parameters(hazardous materials, recycling info)Centralized system, operated by EDS

Green 2.0


There are a number of ways to approach thearchitecture of CO2 emission tracking systemand we have been showing a couple ofapproaches above. However, they must satisfythe following requirements:

Small investment

No (major) changes in existing processes

No major IT projects for deploying the solution

The 800-pound gorilla approach

This architectural approach addresses the aboverequirements by leveraging an existinginvestment in a supply chain collaborationsoftware.

Essentially all what is required, is the extensionsof the data types in a purchase / work order.

Centralized catalogue as SaaS

This architecture choice takes a differentapproach. It addresses the requirements byplacing most of the complexity into a centralized

server which would be operated and maintainedby a 3rd party. Companies participating in CO2tracking would only need to publish their datathrough web services – a minor financial andtechnology investment.

This approach has been proven to be successfulwith similar solution in slightly different contexts. Agood example is from the automotive industry: theInternational Material Data System (IMDS).

In fact, this system could be easily extended totrack the carbon emissions of material andcomponents.

However, a standardization will be necessary andthere’s only room for one repository per industryand region. Those repositories would need to befederated through standardized interfaces.

The standardization through an official bodyneeds to be investigated. A good start will be ad-hoc industry standards supported by majorplayers.

SAP Research will work towards a pilot in theconsumer goods / retail industry and is engagingwith key partner and customers.

Green 2.0


The complete environmental assessment

Enterprise footprint

Measuring of direct andindirect emissionsAggregation of plant andenterprise level

Product level footprint –EnterpriseAssign environmental impactto each step in productionAccount for it

Product level footprint –Supply chainShare environmental dataacross the supply chain for acomplete environmentalfootprint of goods andservices

PEnvironmental Compliance

P Green 2.0

Project Bean Counter

P Green 2.0

Project Footprint

SAP/TechniData already provide a solution(Environmental Compliance) to assess theenvironmental footprint of a plant and an enterprise.SAP Research will investigate the how this is brokendown on a product level, within the enterprise(Project Bean Counter) and beyond the enterprise(Project Footprint).

The complete environmental assessment as numberof components. For now we will focus the three areasshown above: assessment of plant / enterprise,breaking this done on a product level, and adding theimpact from the supply chain.

Future extension will cover the complete life cycle,specifically the usage and end-of-life phases.

Green 2.0


Green 2.0


…… … ... ...

Environmental Accounting – Overview

ProcessEvery process step hasenvironmental impactGet measurements (mostly)from existing sources, e.g.run-time of machine, materialuses, etc

LogisticsExtend logistics documents tocapture environmental data

Cost AccountingInclude environmental data inproduct cost accountingRoll-up cost across costcenters per product

stock

production

transportation

Suppliers Enterprise Customer

Cost accounting

GoodsReceived

Productionorder

Productionorder

Productionorder

Transportationorder

GoodsIssued

Transportationorder

Green 2.0


Leveraging ERP

The framework for Environmental Accounting isalready available with ERP, specifically withlogistics and product costing.

On a very high-level, we only need to extend thecurrent accounting mechanisms by adding non-financial parameters.

Critical factors to be investigated

Impact on ERP

We think that it is critical for the adoption ofenvironmental accounting that the currentaccounting processes and their implementation inERP stay unchanged. ImplementingEnvironmental Accounting should be additive andshould ideally not require a new version of ERPsoftware.

Availability of environmental data

Creating new processes for collecting data forenvironmental accounting would create a majorchallenge to its adoption.

The case study we are currently conducting withCSH Chico and Lundberg Family Farms showsthat the company is already collecting virtually allof the necessary for a variety of purposes, mostlyfinancial accounting.

The challenge at hand is to bundle and normalizeall this data and assign it to the product costaccounting processes.

During Spring 2007, we plan set-up an ERPsystem configuration for environmentalaccounting to show the feasibility and to get anestimate of the necessary effort.

Green 2.0


Background

Green 2.0 external:https://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/x/FOQGreen 2.0 SAP internal:http://research.pal.sap.corp:1080/wiki/Green2.0Green 2.0 blog:http://andreasonsoftware.blogspot.com/

Andreas VogelSAP Research Palo [email protected]+1 415 341 3438

ContactCustomer Engagement

Information

Getting feedback on approachEstablishing working relationships witha select group of (five to eight)customers towards footprintingsolutionsIdentifying one or two companies forpilot deployments

Green 2.0


Andreas recently returned to research when hejoined SAP Research where he started the projectGreen2.0.

Prior to joining SAP Research, Andreas held avariety of executive positions at SAP: as amember of the Corporate Consulting Team headvised the chairman, the CEO and executiveboard members on strategic topics, as VicePresident Product Management he led theinitiative to service-enable (Enterprise SOA)SAP’s core product ERP and managed the globalroll-out of ERP 2005, helped with the creation of anew business unit Governance, Risk andCompliance and produced a business plan forSAP to become a leader in EnvironmentalManagement Software.

Andreas also worked for a number of start-upsand Silicon Valley icons, Borland (Chief Scientist)and VMware (European Business Development).He was also founding CTO of Mspect, a companydedicated to quality of service monitoring forwireless data communication such as textmessaging, now owned by AC Nielsen.

Andreas holds an MSc and a PhD in ComputerScience from Humboldt University Berlin,Germany and held post-doctoral researchpositions at the Universite de Montreal, Canada,and the Distributed Systems Technology Centerin Brisbane, Australia. He co-authored four bookson various aspects of distributed systemstechnology and enterprise software, all publishedby J. Wiley & Sons, has written tens of journalpapers and conference contributions and holds anumber patents.

https://wiki.sdn.sap.com/wiki/x/FOQ

http://research.pal.sap.corp:1080/wiki/G

http://andreasonsoftware.blogspot.com/

mailto:[email protected]

andreas vogel, sap research th, 2008...fleet managers business value fleet fuel consumption building...

Documents