A three-headed monster.

An author of a time management book says she observed a sign in a small furniture re-finishing shop phrased something like this: "We can prepare your custom order: 1) In a short amount of time; 2) At a low cost; 3) With zero defects. Pick two."

In all likelihood, most businesspeople from CEOs through production line workers have felt the same way about what they are asked to do. Few of us, though, have the independence of being a sole proprietor that allows us to convey such a message to supervisors, customers or shareholders.

But that does not make the point any less valid. Managers sitting in the same exact office may be told one day that productivity is king (see options 1 and 2). The next week, the lecture may involve reaching unparalleled heights of quality (see option 3). Just a few days later, however, a customer may demand that a "China price" be met, and if not, then an equally high-quality supplier can be found for less (see options 2 and 3).

Whatever a company's mission statement may be, ultimately the mission boils down to somehow providing all of these options at once.

Recyclers are certainly no exception in terms of confronting this three-headed monster. The dialogue between recyclers and the manufacturers who consume their scrap metal, paper and plastic usually touches upon one or more of these three management aspects.

Presentations at conferences that bring recyclers and consumers together often focus on quality. But even quality has its price threshold. Very thorough (and very expensive) sorting systems are available to recyclers to decrease their contaminant levels to almost undetectable amounts. However, such expenses must be passed along to consumers who are engaged in the same bottom-line-oriented contest as their competitors.

Additionally, ultra-careful sorting probably involves slowing down the recycler's production line, making it harder to meet the delivery dates that are so vital to facilities operating in a just-in-time world.

This difficult "pick two" out of three demands seems to work its way out on a very informal basis in many secondary materials markets. When mills are running at high capacity, buyers and mill managers may (informally) lower their quality standards in order to make sure product is churned out on time and at budget.

Contrarily, recyclers can tell many tales of "market rejections," when the same or even higher-quality material is rejected when mill managers find themselves with more inventory than they require.

Improved measurement and materials analysis techniques could offer a way to standardize rejection and acceptance criteria. This could help improve fairness in the way shipments are treated, but it is not likely to solve all the problems that stem from dealing with a three-headed monster.