Lisa,
I’m not sure I can agree with your description based on information easily found on mM’s website. Your first claim above is that the search is like a google search which is direct to live information at the manufacturer’s website. If that was the case, why does a manufacturer need to input their products’ information through Origin’s platform in order to be listed in the mM library? Wouldn’t the search engine be able to find that information on the manufacturer’s own website like google does? Even the quoted information you posted earlier contradicts your statement, “Manufacturers manage all product information directly in a free Origin account, connect to or upload relevant integrated certification and disclosure documents for each product, then submit for review and admission to the [mM] Library.” Manufacturers are tasked with providing the information directly through Origin (not their own websites) for it to be published in the mM library. If the search engine gathers information from a manufacturer’s website, why do they have to manage that information for each product through the Origin account?
This means that the information in the mM library can become out of date quite easily. mM’s FAQ (https://www.mindfulmaterials.com/faqs) notes that it takes time for manufacturers to provide this information, “[…] There will be time needed to provide thorough and accurate product information […],” (1st FAQ under the “Manufacturers” heading). So if a manufacturer decides that the time needed to provide that information, or to update it, is no longer worth it … the information can become out of date and potentially inaccurate. Further down in the mM FAQ this necessity to update your own information is clearly spelled out for manufacturers, “[Q:] Who is responsible for updating the database and how often does this occur? [A:] Manufacturers are responsible for keeping their mindful MATERIALS data current. They maintain editorial access to all content they publish to the mindful MATERIALS Library” (5th FAQ under the “mindful MATERIALS Library, Powered by Origin” heading). Note that it makes no claim that a manufacturer simply needs to keep their own website up to date once they’ve gained access into the library.
When I noted that the mM database is curated I don’t mean that the interface is curated, or that the mM team is picking and choosing which data to include. Rather, mM is curating (or selecting, organizing, and presenting) which products are able to be included in the library by setting baseline criteria that each product needs to achieve. For reference, see the baseline criteria on the “mM Submission Criteria” under the “Resources” heading on the mM website, or read it here (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5750715007eaa0123e3a1c25/t/5e34482dfb38da4ec976b9c4/1580484653812/mM+Submission+Criteria_Q42019.pdf). If a manufacturer’s product doesn’t meet this criteria, and they don’t want to pay to get one of the accepted disclosures, tests, or certifications done, they cannot get that product listed in the mM library.
In this way, as a potential user of the library, I am not able to choose whatever criteria I use in searching the library based on my clients’ requirements if my clients’ might be less stringent than the baseline criteria that mM has established. It also means that a manufacturer might have only a portion of all their product offerings included in the library and able to show up in my search. By using the search, I’m limited in seeing information that should be available to me as I attempt to make an informed decision about which products my clients might be ok with. Even if all the information on a particular product is that it exists and has no redeeming sustainable qualities … I would like to see it and know that it exists. In this way I can choose to filter it out based on the sustainable qualities I wish to use in my product search parameters. The difference is that they are my (clients’) parameters rather than anyone else’s.
This last point gets to the comments that the Mar(k/c)'s made earlier. If we are not supposed to be arbitrarily deciding which products are better and worse than others, and we are not supposed to be using our client’s money to further our own sustainability agenda without their informed consent … I need to be able to get from my client what sustainable goals they wish to pursue even if it means none (assuming my firm still wants them as a client after teasing this information out of them). I then need to be able to fulfill my duty to them in finding products and materials that support their goals rather than my own, or those of the mindful MATERIALS collaborative. mM’s baseline criteria establishes a minimum bar to entry that may not coordinate with my client’s goals. If I were to believe what you are saying about the tool, I’m unknowingly not fulfilling my duty to my client to the best of my abilities because I would be operating from incorrect assumptions about the tool. A tool that should have been helping me, but instead might end up being a liability.
So no, I don’t think I’ll take you up on the offer to go do a demo. I’ve discussed this tool with others in my office that have access to it and have tried to use it before. I’ll take the descriptions of their experiences with it, and I’ll take what I’ve been able to research about it in my efforts to respond in this thread, and I’ll decide whether or not it might be worth registering for an account. For my firm and those I work with, I will be recommending that anyone using materials databases like this understands the criteria for entry, understands where it may not align with our clients’ stated goals, and are judicious in their use of the database. I’d encourage others to do the same.