[1]

Bill Walker: This is how to identify our difference. Try to keep it positive. (see examples below)

[2]

Bill Walker: This is for engineering term and should be a %, ppm, mg/m3, std dev, etc.

[3]

Bill Walker: Generally should be the financial of benefit to our customer or benefit to air quality

[4]

Bill Walker: To general. There are numerous causes of sample contamination.
We need to address each major cause.

[5]

Bill Walker: This might be a good "poke yoke" solution but it is not what we do today.

[6]

Bill Walker: Too specific. True that road salt and road grease can easily contaminate a probe on a roof rack. But it is not the only source of contamination from probe liner and nozzle material.

[7]

Bill Walker:
True but still not specific

[8]

Bill Walker: This is true but not very descriptive of our process.

[9]

Bill Walker:

We are trying to convince people that we are worth more because we know and do more.

The rows on this intranet page are for benefits in developement or PDSA phase. Once we have identified that we are delivering one of these constantly we will move it to a similiar public web page. See good and bad examples below of how to write these benefits.
These examples are arranged in order from bad - to good - best. Our goal is to educate our customers to see that we use an engineered system and brains not a check list and monkeys. See comment for logic.
Problem - Need - Opportunity	CleanAir's System	What to look for [1]	Error or Bias [2]	Benefit [3]
Particulate sample contamination.[4]	Glass or titanium lined probes.[5]	Green oily wash residue in first probe wash beaker.[6]	Unknown	Unknown
Dissolved probe material contaminating sample.[7]	Eliminate all sources of probe contamination.[8]	Green tint to probe wash beaker indicating nickel or copper leached form probe.	Depends on many factors.	Varies form job to job.
Probe and nozzle wash contamination from oxidation of metal in contact with sample gas.	Engineered selection of site specific probe and nozzle materials of construction to insure no analytes of interest are in contact with sampled gas or wash solutions.[9]	Probe & nozzle wash appearance and mass loading consistent with expectations based on knowledge of process variation, other runs, previous test results and engineering analysis.	Our experience is that the nozzle contamination alone can introduce a significant error. The error introduced by the probe can result in more than doubling of the particulate emission rate. Both can result in reporting analytes that are not present in the stack gas.	We think this error cost source owners millions of dollars each year. It is an error that keeps on stealing from the bottom line everytime the data is used.