Resource Intensity


The BigQ – Leading for Competitive Advantage in the One Planet World


 

The One Planet World

   It is clear that the pressure we are putting the Earth under is leading to resource shortages, both in absolute terms and relative distribution. For many of us, our experiment in living a multiple planet existence on the only planet we have is coming to a close.

   This has far reaching consequences for how we will ‘manage for a One Planet World’ and the leadership skills it will need.

It is often said that the past is another country, when the ‘customer was king’ and the drive was ‘quality’, ‘integrated teams’ and the work of Deming, Crosby and the other quality gurus.

   Today we live in seemingly more complex world where the customer is no longer king, only the most important ‘stakeholder’ in a confusing mix of social, environmental and economic drivers.

The Little and the ‘Big Q’

   Up until now we have thought of Quality as the ‘Little Q’, as fitness for purpose rather than the ‘emergent property’ it is; the property a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have – the ‘BigQ’

In the One Planet World we can no longer say that because a product or service satisfies, nay delights the customer, that it possesses ‘quality’ –  if it leads to a ‘loss to society’ overall, as Taguchi would say; through economic, social and environmental failures.

Ask Nature

This isn’t the way nature does things. Nature seeks to maximize the value added to society that results from its creation, use and disposal of eco-system products and services, without loss. This is the BigQ definition of quality we must aspire to. Quality is that which

Maximizes the value added to society that results from the creation, use and disposal of products and services at continually reducing loss.

This is a journey of integrated continual improvement, not a destination.

A Mind Model

Using the One Planet Equation Mind Model (OPE) 1 = P x C x RI, we are inevitably drawn to its consequence; the First Law of Sustainability ‘In a resource constrained environment, goods and services can only grow at the rate at which their resource intensity can be reduced beyond balancing the One Planet Equation’.

From this vantage point we can look dispassionately at the One Planet World and say what this means for us as suppliers and customers of its products and services.

Resource Intensity

At our starting point on our journey towards the One Planet World we have

1 = P x C x RI or 1 = 1 x 1 x 1

And as we move forward from this point, the 1 planet remains the same so the right hand product always has to equal one. The only way this can happen in a resource constrained environ-ment is if the Resource Intensity, (RI) is never more than 1/PC.

This is the key to future strategic leadership and competitive advantage. We must

◦       Seek to eliminate the cannots

◦       Base our business models on the musts.

◦       Work to continually reduce the Resource Intensity of the products and services we create, use and dispose of.

Don’ts and Do’s

From this we can say that in the One Planet World

◦       Energy, water and other resources will be constrained

◦       Human resources will be plentiful

And from these come the ‘we cannots’

◦       Create growth faster than we can reduce Resource Intensity (RI)

◦       Waste or ineffectively invest resources

◦       Freely transport resources or goods

◦       Use a linear system of creation, use and disposal

◦       Keep creating products and services that allow unlimited forms of self-actualization

◦       Invest in inflexible technology, infrastructure and buildings

◦       Design for obsolescence

◦       Use Energy and water   ineffectively

And the ‘we must

◦       Evolve our democratic processes to enable process learning and continual improvement

◦       Leave behind the reductionist, compliance approach to organizational management

◦       Think local

◦       Educate for RI minimization

◦       Continually reduce the RI of non-essential processes to zero (eliminate them)

◦       Replace energy with people (Ingenuity and creativity) in processes. These are your customers!

◦       Replace products with services

◦       Design for maintainability

◦       Design for reliability

◦       Complete the cradle to cradle loop as far as possible

◦       Mimic natural processes

◦       Group symbiotic processes together

◦       Work to continually reduce the losses in the essential processes remaining (improve quality).

Only in this way can we perceive

how we are to lead for competitive advantage in the One Planet World and how we are to manage and maintain that advantage.

The Double Headed Coin

In the Big Q One Planet World we have to see environmental and social failures as much a part of the costs of poor quality as economic ones. That quality and sustainability are the two sides of the same coin, toss it and you can only win.

Business in the 3rd Millennium

It is increasingly being recognised that we are coasting to the top of many resource curves, and are at or near the reality of the OPE deciding our futures

In managing for the future, businesses will have to cope with this reality. Fortunately humans are creative and enterprising and some organisations will survive and many more will be created.

Our past has been characterised as reductionist, but our future depends on our being able to shift paradigms to ‘systems thinking’, of not managing local time and costs but creating value and managing its flow through the system.

We have to work to continually reduce the combined ‘resource intensity’ of the essential processes that contribute to the flow of value through the system

This is best viewed as integrated, continual quality improvement – of reducing the loss in those processes – the BigQ.

Future Shock

We are suffering from what Alvin Toffler called ‘Future Shock’.

This being a state of confusion that arises when the past offers little guidance to dealing with the present and the future and we are in such a time, where the past offers few signposts to the future – when increasing demand for goods and services meets declining resources to create them.

Tomorrow’s businesses depend on their abilities to continually transform what they do and how they do it, and to achieve this they need a regeneration of the mindset that led them to this point in time.

They must have the ability to think beyond the boundaries of the organisation to the wider system and seek to attain their organizational outcomes at continually reducing resource intensity.

Creativity and Ingenuity

Deming created his circle of improvement, Plan, Do, Check, Act and it has stood the test of time but it doesn’t explicitly show the need for the creativity and ingenuity required to drive continual improvement, towards system sustainability.

Including these vital ingredients creates a Virtuous Circle that, using ‘in process control’ and a synergy of an entire organization’s stake-holders and their combined knowledge and skills, enables process learning, which after sensing and absorbing external signals will liberate the creativity and  ingenuity within to drive the process design in the direction of sustainability.

As the process becomes more sustainable, the losses are by definition minimised, reducing the need for appraisal costs and eliminating the costs and risks of internal and most importantly, external failures.

RI of Failure Demand

“Failure demand’ is caused by a failure to do something, or do something right for the customer and ‘value demand’ – is what the system exists to provide”, – John Seddon.

It is evident that such failure demand within systems will increase their Resource Intensity and in a resource constrained, One Planet World, these will increasingly be social and environmental failures.

Approaching their elimination from our current reductionist paradigm can only lead to the weakening of the links of Eliyahu Goldratt’s ‘Critical Chain’; which can only be strengthened by seeing these failures as part of a

an organization’s costs of poor quality; of its failure to live up to the Big Q.

Product or Service?

Tomorrow’s organisations must think how they can transform what they provide from a product to a service. They must think in terms of resource ‘stewardship’ and completing the ‘life cycle loop’.

All stakeholders must be ‘in the loop’ to maximize the ‘value added to society’ as the value flows around it; creating a synergy of knowledge and skills that will drive the Virtuous Circle.

As was ever the case we must be in the right place at the right time, doing the right thing, right. The anticipation of competitor and customer actions makes the difference between success and failure. Peter Drucker said “what the customer sees, thinks, believes and wants at any time determines if value is being created”

Instantaneous Adaptability

Leading in the One Planet World requires us to be almost instantaneously adaptable as individuals, with the vision and skills to create the same adaptability within the organizations we serve.

The resources available to us will be reducing over time and we must marshal them to continually increase the supply of goods and services that meet the essential emotional and spiritual needs of our customers.

It is unlikely that there will be many businesses supplying gratuitous wants in the One Planet World.

Tomorrow’s leaders must have the skills and ability to liberate the creativity and ingenuity in their people and other stakeholders that will enable and drive change.

Zero-based thinking

Zero-based thinking, as written about by Brian Tracy, is usually asking the question:

“Knowing what I know now, would I get into this business, job, or situation again?”

If the answer is yes, continue and improve; If the answer is no, get out of the situation as soon as possible and start from scratch.

As we coast over the top of the oil and other curves, this is the critical question we must all answer continuously, both professionally and personally to live the BigQ.

Managing for the Future

Tomorrow’s businesses must

◦       Satisfy emotional and spiritual need rather than gratuitous wants

◦       Satisfy essential needs in the lower orders of Maslow’s Pyramid

◦       Employ people rather than energy

◦       Create or use renewable energy and other resources

◦       Minimise water use or create the technologies that do

◦       Create and deploy climate stabilising and mitigation technologies

◦       Be increasingly local

◦       Provide a service rather than a product

◦       Practice lifecycle stewardship of their resources

◦       Manage value rather than cost

◦       Be able to operate at continually reducing resource intensity

Leading and managing for the future means understanding that the One Planet Equation and the world it is creating will arrive whether we choose to ignore it or not; that the BigQ is an opportunity and a challenging adventure.

Learning and Teaching

In the One Planet World we must learn what our customers are uniquely able to teach us if we are make maximum use of the resources available to us in the creation use and disposal of our goods and services.

This learning must be instantaneously part of our ‘Virtuous Circle’ of improvement to ensure continual process learning and Resource Intensity reduction.

Education for system RI reduction, the BigQ, will be an integral part of the organizational learning of those businesses, and the new ones created, that will successfully transition to the One Planet World

Leaders for ‘Future Advantage’ will

◦       Remember Deming’s adage that ‘Survival is not Compulsory’ for a business, or the human race.

◦       Understand that time is not on our side.

◦       See the future as a challenging adventure and not an impossible challenge.

Conclusion – Future Advantage

This article is predicated on four tenets

◦       That we are addicted to the hugely ineffective use of energy and other resources

◦       That most current discourse is centred on the ’symptoms’ our addiction causes – climate change, environmental, social and economic failures

◦       That human beings are, and have been, creative, ingenious and enterprising since the dawn of our species.

◦       That ’our’ future is ‘our’ problem – that the Earth will most probably manage very well without us.

Most other sources are concentrating on the problems our addiction is causing from a ’symptoms’ perspective, which appeals to many, as it gives the appearance of concern, whilst putting off action until tomorrow.

Many have a genuine desire to see immediate change but through a natural and emotional wish to deal with the symptoms are having their efforts dissipated.

The OPE makes clear the effect our addiction is having and makes explicit the action needed to create the One Planet World – to continually reduce the resource intensity of all the products and services we consume.

This is the real challenge we face if we are to create an economic future that is more equitable, whilst eliminating the risks of environmental and social failures in its creation.

We want as organizations, communities and societies to continually improve the ‘quality of our lives’ and this can only be achieved, logically, by continually improving the ‘quality’ of the products and services we create and consume over their life-cycle.

We must ‘Do the Right Thing’ – be effective in our use of resources and ‘Do it Right Every Time’ – be efficient in our use of those resources. This is a Journey, not a destination and has at its core the need for an effort of ‘quality improvement’ driven by human creativity that the world has not yet experienced – the BigQ

We face many challenges to achieving this, not least, the economic failure we are now experiencing and the natural response to ‘fight the last war with obsolete weapon’s’ but we have no option but to enter the future and we must envision what this future will be.

Human ingenuity and enterprise will ensure that some societies and organizations will exist and thrive as we attempt to ‘keep ahead of the oil curve.’

All future ingenuity, research, education, legislation and incentives must be directed to this end.

 ©Derek Deighton and Jackie Ansbro

Trailblazer Business Futures 2009

Email from CalCars http://www.calcars.org/

Here’s CalCars’ comment: “We applaud Toyota’s recognition that PHEVs’
time has come. The technology is good enough to get started and the
solution offers a good business case. We hope as this hybrid pioneer
watches large and small competitors start selling PHEVs a year
earlier, it will accelerate its timetable and raise production levels.”

(Shortly after it goes out on email, this posting will also be
viewable at http://www.calcars.org/news-archive.html — there you can
add CalCars-News to your RSS feed.)

THE PRIUS’S TIMELINES TO TODAY: It’s taken a long time. Toyota
introduced the Prius as the first-mass-production hybrid in Japan in
1997. It went global in 2001; the second-generation vehicle arrived
in 2004, the third in 2009, and over two million have been sold.
Meanwhile CalCars did the first Prius conversion in 2004, sparking
the growth of an aftermarket industry. Since 2006, a thousand plug-in
Prius conversions showing what was possible helped build awareness
and support for PHEVs, and the company’s public comments evolved from
dismissive to open-minded (see
http://www.calcars.org/carmakers.html#toyotaquotes ).

Toyota showed its first PHEV prototype in 2007. Until this week, the
company had announced plans only for fleet leases of 600
demonstration/test units in Japan, the U.S., and Europe, with
consumer sales only a possibility. Now it will start selling them in
2011, with tens of thousands in showrooms in 2012 at a “affordable”
price tag. Reporters say Toyota has concluded that PHEVs “will become
the market mainstream.”
http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20091208-184656.html

NFORMATION SOURCES: Toyota has a new website with basic explanations
and specifications at http://www.priusphv.com . And see the
illuminating 20-slide presentation by Toyota Chief Engineer Yoshikazu
Tanaka
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/tech/environment/conference09/pdf/phv_overview_en.pdf
. At http://www.greencarcongress.com/2009/12/tmc-phv-20091214.html
read Green Car Congress’s summary and postings. Following are our
comments based on announced specifications.

BUSINESS DETAILS: Tanaka’s presentation projects “full-scale
commercialization in two years, on the order of several ten
thousands, with widely affordable pricing.” Toyota EVP Uchiyamada
indicates (below) that the vehicle could sell for under $33,770. With
U.S. Recovery Act tax credits of up to $7,500 for the first 200,000
plug-in vehicle from each manufacturer based on battery capacity; the
PHV’s 5.2 kWh battery pack, from its joint venture Panasonic EV
Energy, makes it eligible for about $2,500.

If prices hold, we’ve been on the right track in saying Toyota might
sell a plug-in Prius for little more than $3,000 over a non-PHEV
model. A 3.4 useful-kWh pack at $1,000/useful-kWh would cost $3,400.
The $1,000 saved by eliminating the NiMH battery could offset a
similar cost for a charger and a beefed-up DC:DC converter. As those
battery prices decline with the credits, PHEVs could approach the
cost of standard hybrids.

Operating costs for a 30km trip compared to gasoline vehicle, based
on Japanese petroleum and electric rates, are 58% better when
charging at peak times and 77% better off-peak.

TECHNICAL DETAILS: Comparing the vehicle with the 2010 Prius on which
it’s based (specs at http://www.toyota.com/prius-hybrid/specs.html ),
its weight (3,284 pounds/1,490 kg) increases by 242 pounds/110 kg.
The engine and motor appear identical, and modified electronics will
allow more power from the electric motor.

The PHV uses over 60% of the its 5.2kWh lithium-ion battery pack’s
capacity to get 23.4 km/14.5 miles all-electric driving at speeds up
to 100 km/62 miles/hour. (For Japanese drivers traveling shorter
distances, the 20 km “sweet spot” covers 53.7% of daily driving and
51.2% of weekend driving.) Recharging is 180 minutes at 110-120
volts, 100 minutes at 220 — offering good opportunities to double
the vehicle’s effective range for those who can charge mid-day at work.

Petroleum and greenhouse gas reductions depend on multiple
assumptions — we can simply say that using the new JC08 driving
cycle yields over 100 MPG of gasoline. See
http://green.autoblog.com/2009/12/15/what-does-the-prius-phev-mileage-really-mean-on-the-jc08-cycle/
for a discussion of the PHV’s fuel efficiency under different
conditions; this discussion leaves out consideration of the
difference between CAFE and sticker numbers.

FEATURES: The vehicle’s new screens’ full integration with the
navigation system and information about the battery will give drivers
feedback about optimizing fuel economy. The car can be cooled in
advance while still plugged in for comfort and fuel efficiency.

WHY AN EU RENEWABLE ENERGY PLAN NEEDS SOLAR POWER

Background to EU energy issues -

Climate science points to a reduction in carbon emissions of at least 80% by 2050. In practice, this will require the decarbonisation of at least 90% of most types of EU energy supplies. The average energy useage in the EU is currently about 125 kwhr/person/day (IEA).   By 2050, it is reasonable to expect efficiency savings and mode alteration to reduce this energy consumption to about 100 kwhr/person/ day, which is equivalent to 4kW continuous mean power consumption per person.

The current population of the EU27 is 500M  (Eurostat). So by 2050, the EU primary energy use will be of the order of 500M+  x  4 kW =   2000+ GW mean

There is insufficient uranium ore to power a nuclear powered future, even if that were desirable, as 1000 GW of conventional nuclear power can only be fuelled for about 15 years with the currently known sources of ore.  CCS is an unknown quantity and it is unlikely that the massive scale of CO2 sequestration required could be achieved on this scale, even if it were desirable. So huge renewable energy sources are essential………………….

full article at http://www.claverton-energy.com/why-an-eu-renewable-energy-plan-needs-solar-power.html

The Copenhagen Blues

Mark Brinkley

The great Copenhagen climate summit is now well underway and many people seem to be making encouraging noises. But at the same time, there seems to be a huge and growing amount of scepticism around. Such is our suspicion of politicians and opinion formers these days, that if they all seem to agree on one thing, then they simply MUST be wrong, or so the thinking goes.

For me, the worry isn’t about
• whether or not climate change is happening (it surely is),
• nor whether it is caused by our carbon emissions (it surely is – I’ve not been in any doubt since I first saw the ice core readings a few years back, I think that’s what clinched it for me. You can stick sunspots)
• nor how serious it may be (Bjorn Lomborg is beginning to sound more and more shrill, or maybe he’s just annoying because he is so smug)
• but just what the hell are we really going to do about it.

Yesterday, I heard Ed Milliband, our climate change minister, being interviewed on Radio 5 by Simon Mayo. He was game for a few questions and one enterprising listener in Japan asked the population question. Like “if we can’t cope now, how are we going to cope with 3 billion extra people on board?” And Milliband minor answered thus: “By 2050, our economies will be six or seven times larger than they are now, and so we must ensure that all that growth is low or zero carbon growth.”!!!…………

 

What is AskNature?

Imagine 3.8 billion years of design brilliance available for free, at the moment of creation, to any sustainability innovator in the world.  

Imagine nature’s most elegant ideas organized by design and engineering function, so you can enter “filter salt from water” and see how mangroves, penguins, and shorebirds desalinate without fossil fuels.

Now imagine you can meet the people who have studied these organisms, and together you can create the next great bio-inspired solution.

That’s the idea behind AskNature, the online inspiration source for the biomimicry community. Think of it as your home habitat—whether you’re a biologist who wants to share what you know about an amazing organism, or a designer, architect, engineer, or chemist looking for planet-friendly solutions. AskNature is where biology and design cross-pollinate, so bio-inspired breakthroughs can be born.

Thanks to our sponsors, AskNature is a free, open source project, built by the community and for the community. Our goal is to connect innovative minds with life’s best ideas, and in the process, inspire technologies that create conditions conducive to life. To accomplish this, we’re doing something that has never been done—organizing the world’s biological literature by function.

What you’ll see on the site today is a starter culture of ideas—biological blueprints and strategies, bio-inspired products and design sketches, and biomimics you can talk to and collaborate with. Over the next few months, this genetic pool of ideas will grow as we receive natural history information from our partner, Encyclopedia of Life. Our social web will also grow, beginning with tapping into thousands of solution seekers who are part of the Wiser Earth global network.

Luckily, we live on a wildly diverse planet surrounded by genius, and now there’s one site where you can celebrate, learn from, and even conserve that genius. So please, come meet your mentors, get involved, and be part of the design revolution inspired by nature.

~Janine Benyus
  Co-Founder/Board President
  The Biomimicry Institute

website at http://www.asknature.org/article/view/what_is_ask_nature

Examine Use Requirements and Design Before Choosing Lighting Fixtures

By Lindsay Audin
December 2009

When looking at the life-cycle cost of lighting, it pays to parse all the pieces: not just the prices for fixtures, lamps, and ballasts, but also the costs for power to run them, the labor to maintain them, and services to dispose of them. Savings are possible that could cut the overall cost of illumination by 5 to 15 percent.

Most estimates are that 80 percent of the cost to operate a fixture is energy, with the remainder distributed between labor and parts. But such charts may not include the initial cost of the fixture, lamp/ballast disposal, and other charges. Fortunately, options exist to minimize these and other factors, including energy.

For the purpose of looking at the lifetime costs of lighting, and opportunities to contain and reduce them, the following examples use a typical recessed 3-lamp, 4-foot linear fluorescent fixture with standard T8 lamps and an electronic ballast. All costs are in today’s dollars, without escalations.

Start With The Task

Most spaces are illuminated to achieve tasks such as work, instruction, or sales. Each has an appropriate lighting level, but finding such excessive levels is common. Some corridors are lit as brightly as offices or classrooms, despite the fact that a much lower level may be satisfactory. The same may be true when a task changes. One college library space was converted to a cafeteria, with no adjustment to lighting levels. Many offices now filled with LCD screens are still lit as though typewriters were in use. The end result in all three cases is roughly double the necessary light level, which then doubles the operating and maintenance costs………………

full story at http://www.facilitiesnet.com/lighting/article/Examine-Use-Requirements-and-Design-Before-Choosing-Lighting-Fixtures–11343

The Smart Grid’s Coming Electric Economy

The Utilities’ View of the Smart Grid

By Nick Hodge
Wednesday, December 9th, 2009

The economy of yesterday was dependent on access to cheap petroleum. The economy of tomorrow will be dependent on access to cheap, reliable electricity.

Consider this nugget of crucial information: In the 1950s, 40% of the U.S. economy relied on electricity. Today, fully two-thirds (66%) of our economy depends on it.

And we haven’t even electrified our transportation yet.

Such was the backdrop for high-level talks at GreenBeat 2009, where I had the chance to talk about the future of electricity with some of the brightest (and wealthiest) in the biz.

Last week, we took a look at Google’s perspective and entrance into the electricity arena. Today, we’ll take a look at the utility perspective.

Smart Grid and The Economy

While I heard from many venture capitalists and smart grid product providers, I must say it was a pleasure to get the utilities’ take on things. After all, when it comes to the smart grid, the utility is the customer.

The session began with a primer on the current status of the grid. Basically, we’ve been living for 100 years with grid 1.0, the electro-mechanical analog version that dumbly pushed power along……………

Full financial story at http://www.energyandcapital.com/articles/utilities-smart-grid-economy/1029?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eacfeed+%28Energy+and+Capital%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Local-food activist makes the farm-bike-sailboat connection

by Elly Blue, BikePortland

Jan Lundberg moved to Portland a year ago because it seemed like the best place to pursue his intersecting passions for food security, peak oil, bicycles, and sailing.

These passions will be coming to fruition later this month when the oil analyst’s brainchild, the Sail Transport Network, will launch into its first major, ongoing local venture. Lundberg is finalizing plans to deliver malted grain from Vancouver, Washington to a brewery further down the Columbia River by a combination of cargo bike and sailboat.

The next phase in the project will be to use the same bike-boat combination to deliver the finished product — bottles and kegs of beer — to Portland markets. (Lundberg asked that we not name the brewery until the plan is finalized.)

Image

Part of the farm-bike-boat delivery team at last year’s Village Building Convergence on the dock at OMSI.

Lundberg intends this partnership to be the seed of a radical change in the way we transport — and think about — food.

“Just taking care of a brewery and being able to distribute some beer is not really food security,” he told us over the phone. “But what you can do is add on to this existing system with more farms, more bike carts, more sailboats, and more CSA subscribers — and that’s the way it grows.”……………

Full story at http://www.energybulletin.net/node/50938

Is Search Killing the Planet?

Everytime you search on Google etc., you are adding to the consumption of 1% of the world’s energy

by Idris Mootee

Apple Data Center

Here is a lesser-known fact. Data centers use up tons of energy just for cooling, and in a typical data center only 40-45% of energy use is for the actual computing – the rest is used mostly for cooling down the servers. Data centers’ emissions of carbon dioxide have been running at around one third of those of airlines, but are growing 10% a year and now approach levels of entire countries such as Argentina or the Netherlands.

Apple is building its own server farm. Apple has secured a $300 million tax cut from North Carolina politicians in exchange for investing $1 billion over nine years for a so-called technology "hub." Wonder why Apple needs such a big server farm? There’s only one reason, Apple is contemplating a large-scale strategic shift to deliver multiple applications as a service on an enhanced Apple device, which I think will be entertainment related.

Back to the energy saving topic, here’s one of the greenest data centers on earth which will be housed in a massive cave beneath an orthodox Christian cathedral in Helsinki. It is a former bomb shelter carved into the rock by the fire brigade in World War Two as a refuge for city officials from Russian air raids. Excess heat from hundreds of computer servers will be captured and fed into the district’s heating network, a system of water-heated pipes used to warm homes in the city. This makes perfect sense and I don’t see why these server farms need to be in California. Should we move all our servers to Scandinavia, Northern Canada and Alaska?

 

It is impossible for us to ascertain the ‘quality’ of Universities unless we clearly understand the ’One Planet World’ we are now entering and consequently ’what they are here for’.

In this ‘One Planet World’. where resources are constrained and human resources are plentiful, Universities can only exist to ‘liberate the creativity required to enable their stakeholders to continually reduce the resource intensity of society at continually reducing resource intensity of learning’

The formation of students throughout the world is for a paradigm that no longer exists – the one of creating wealth through continuously using more resources – the paradigm universities have to educate for is one where wealth is created using fewer and fewer non-renewable resources. The one that is governed by the One Planet Equation and 1st Law of Sustainability, which states

‘In a resource constrained environment, goods and services can only grow at the rate at which they can be reduced beyond that required to balance the One Planet Equation’

note – we also have to recognise that many ‘renewable resources’ are not renewable at exponential rates of use. 

dd

http://oneplanetequation.wordpress.com/one-planet-equation/

http://oneplanetequation.wordpress.com/about/

http://www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_says_schools_kill_creativity.html 

Review to judge ‘quality’ of universities

 

By David Turner, Education Correspondent

Published: December 7 2009 13:39 | Last updated: December 7 2009 13:39

Lord Browne’s review of student funding has broadened into a wide-ranging inquiry into the standard of England’s universities and how well they are serving the economy.

The government-appointed panel on Monday asked for evidence on the overall quality of higher education, seeking to answer the question: “Does the higher education system provide the quality and academic standards that students, employers and national economic needs require?”

The review’s decision to take a broader view of the university sector, rather than concentrate narrowly on student funding, could result in a politically explosive document when it reports after the next general election. Debate over the quality of degrees at English universities has intensified in recent months, particularly after a parliamentary committee raised questions about standards in August.

The Browne review’s focus on the economic payback of degrees will also raise hackles among academics and student leaders. Many argue that ministers have become excessively fixated with universities’ role in the economy, rather than their broader benefits to civilisation.

Full article at http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d1b5a4b6-e331-11de-b965-00144feab49a.html

Next Page »