Simple, Small and Brilliant: Cardboard Oven Wins Climate Innovation Prize

(Information below extracted from different articles by Ariel Schwartz, Helen Tunnincliffe and Shannon Carr-Shand)

THE Kyoto Box oven has won the FT Climate Change Challenge, organised by sustainable development charity Forum for the Future.

The Kyoto Box costs €5 ($6.60) to make and is based on the greenhouse effect. An acrylic cover traps heat from the sun while a silver-foiled outer box and an inner box painted black concentrate the heat. Insulation between the two boxes comes from straw or newspaper. Its inventor, Jon Bøhmer, says that it will halve the need for firewood in developing countries, saving carbon emissions, reducing the need for sometimes dangerous fuel-collecting expeditions and also reducing respiratory problems caused by smoke inhalation. As well as being of use for cooking, the heat generated by the box can boil ten litres of water in two hours, helping to prevent the spread of waterborne diseases

Bøhmer is a Norwegian-born inventor and entrepreneur based in Kenya who set up the design and engineering company Kyoto Energy to develop alternative energy products for the developing world. He says of the oven: “We’re saving lives and saving trees. I doubt if there is any other technology that can make so much impact for so little money.”

He plans to use the £75,000 prize money to conduct large-scale trials of a stronger, plastic version of the Kyoto Box in ten countries including India, Indonesia and Tanzania.

Bohmer envisions the eventual mass production of an equally cheap version of the Kyoto Box made from recycled plastic. He is hoping that the cooker will be eligible for carbon credits. The yearly profit from each stove would be passed on to the user, allowing the box to pay for itself.

The Kyoto Box won out because of its potential for cheap mass manufacturing and the ability to affect billions of lives.

UPDATE: A reader points out that the cardboard solar cooker idea is not an original one. Jewish World Watch has been sending cardboard cookers to refugees in Chad for over two years, and instructions for DIY cookers have been online even longer. So what gives? Why did the Kyoto Box win over more original ideas?

Also, I'd like to include in this article a comment from Shannon Carr-Shand (Forum for the Future) stating as follows:

"There have been a few posts pointing out that the solar-powered oven is not a new idea. The point of the competition was not to reward a eureka moment but to help an innovative approach to climate change reach the market. As Kyoto Energy founder and competition-winner Jon Bøhmer acknowledges in his company literature and on his application, the concept of solar cooking has been around since the eighteenth century. There are other versions of solar cookers available on the web and there are also detailed explanations of how to make a version of a similar device. What distinguishes this approach is that the cooker will be mass-produced cheaply in existing factories, the finished item is to be flat-packed for bulk transportation to end users and is extremely cheap at $6. The $75,000 prize money is going to enable Kyoto Energy to test durable, plastic versions of the cooker with 10,000 people currently burning fossil fuels to clean their water and heat their food. The expert judges and the thousands of members of the public who voted for the Kyoto Box agreed that this simple idea offered the best opportunity amongst the five short-listed ideas for an innovation to help tackle climate change on a big scale. Please see the press release and our site for more information on the competition and its objectives."

The Crisis of Credit Visualized (part 1)

The Crisis of Credit Visualized from Jonathan Jarvis on Vimeo

The Crisis of Credit Visualized (part 2)

Zapatero Reshuffles Cabinet To Combat Crisis

José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, Spanish prime minister, on Tuesday (07/04/09) replaced his finance minister and made five other cabinet changes just a year into his second administration in what he said was “a new push” to cope with the economic crisis.

He handed the finance portfolio to Elena Salgado – a 59-year-old industrial engineer who had been minister of public administration – and dropped Pedro Solbes, a former European commissioner.

Mr Solbes, 66, was regarded as the voice of economic orthodoxy in the government and had openly disagreed with Mr Zapatero on the wisdom of Spain’s costly fiscal stimulus plans as the crisis unfolded. After five years in his latest stint as minister, he had also made clear his wish to retire from politics and his departure had been expected for months.

But the appointment of Ms Salgado, a low-profile Zapatero loyalist, was a surprise, although she is a veteran of Socialist administrations and has an economics degree.

The Spanish economy has been hit particularly hard by the collapse of the housing market and suffers the highest unemployment rate – 15.5 per cent of the workforce – in the eurozone.

Official forecasts have been persistently over-optimistic but independent analysts say the economy will shrink both this year and next. The latest and grimmest forecast was issued this week by CA Cheuvreux, which said gross domestic product would decline by 4.5 per cent in 2009 and a further 1.1 per cent in 2010.

Mr Zapatero said his cabinet reshuffle represented a “change of rhythm”, and he defended Ms Salgado as a hard-working and “an extraordinarily effective manager”.

Last month, Mr Zapatero said in an interview that Spain would launch a new round of stimulus spending, focused on renewable energy and biotechnology, if previous efforts failed to boost the economy by the summer. The next day, Mr Solbes said there was “no room” for further spending of this kind.

Manuel Chaves, former governor of Andalucia, will replace Ms Salgado in the renamed ministry for territorial co-operation, and will have the crucial task of negotiating the financing of Spain’s autonomous and sometimes fractious regional governments.

José Blanco, secretary of the governing Socialist party and a key strategist, was named public works minister, while Angel Gabilondo, a renowned academic, will be education minister.

Trinidad Jiménez, a long-time confidante and fierce ally of Mr Zapatero, was awarded the health and social policy ministry, while cinema director Angeles González-Sinde becomes minister for culture.

Copyright The Financial Times Limited 2009

Crisis: Just An Opportunity To Come Back To Life

Following, an interesting interview to one of the most relevant "thinkers" of the buisness environment in Spain: Álex Rovira (http://www.alexrovira.com/)

La incertidumbre es un concepto poco deseable en términos económicos y empresariales, pero hay maneras de sacarle partido. Según Àlex Rovira, los momentos de crisis o cambio de ciclo son oportunidades que hay que saber aprovechar, ya que todo depende de la actitud con la que nos enfrentemos a ella.

El mundo empresarial se enfrenta actualmente a uno de aquellos periodos de incertidumbre que nunca es bienvenido… ¿Cuál es su consejo?

Lo más importante es saber que, de base, siempre vivimos en una situación de incertidumbre. El entorno siempre es frágil, y hay que tomar consciencia de esta fragilidad para aprender a convivir con la incertidumbre. Hay que estar siempre atento y crear las circunstancias para poder confiar en ti mismo cuando se presente un imprevisto. Hay que trabajar codo con codo con todas las personas que nos rodean, equipo, clientes, proveedores… porque al final, ante una crisis, lo más importante es la confianza y el compromiso con el que podamos contar. Si todo esto es fuerte, ya puede venir una crisis que saldremos adelante. En este sentido, cuando doy una conferencia hay algo que siempre me sorprende.

¿De qué se trata?

Ante un foro de un centenar de empresarios, pregunto: ¿cuántos de ustedes dedica más de 100 horas al año a pensar en su producto o servicio? Y todo el mundo alza la mano. En cambio, cuando les pregunto: ¿cuántos de ustedes dedica más de 100 horas al año a pensar en ustedes mismos y su equipo, y reflexionar sobre qué les une?...

Entonces se levantan pocas manos…

Así es. Y se trata de una pregunta esencial! Hay que tenerla claramente reflexionada y respondida, sólo entonces podremos enfrentarnos a cualquier adversidad, porque significa que en la organización se ha instalado un clima de confianza, de compromiso.

¿Cómo se gana la confianza?

La confianza es dicotómica: o se tiene, o no se tiene, y conseguirla debe ser la prioridad de todo líder. La confianza genera compromiso, y el compromiso genera calidad. Pero esto no se construye de un día para otro, porque la base de la confianza está en la integridad, en las promesas cumplidas, y eso requiere tiempo.

Volviendo a las situaciones de crisis que pueden sobrevenirnos en cualquier momento… ¿Cómo hay que posicionarse?

Hay que tener en cuenta que toda crisis, o cambio, es una oportunidad para renacer. Eso siempre. Pero todo depende de la actitud con la cual te enfrentes a ello. Es lo que se llama el efecto Pigmalión.

¿Qué significa?

Si yo pienso: “esta crisis me va a hundir”, te hundirás. Pero si crees que de esta crisis puedes salir reforzado, en direcciones que quizás a primera vista no son evidentes, conseguirás sacar un refuerzo de todo lo que vaya ocurriendo.

¿Se puede aprovechar la crisis para crecer?

Es más, sin crisis no se puede crecer. Todo proceso de crecimiento ideológico, personal o empresarial, pasa por una ruptura, una crisis en su sentido etimológico. Si no eres capaz de gestionar estas situaciones que te presenta la vida con una postura existencial basada en actitudes positivas, reactivas, preactivas, y generosas, no podrás crear tu propia buena suerte.

¿Todo está relacionado con aquellas claves de la buena suerte de las que hablaba en su libro?

Efectivamente. Y es que muchas de las personas que han transformado su vida lo han hecho a partir de grandes crisis. Tener que pensar profundamente en la propia supervivencia puede dar lugar a grandes innovaciones. El líder de Apple, Steve Jobs, pronunció un discurso que me pareció extraordinario por su honestidad y valentía, y lo concluyó diciendo: “Stay foolish, stay hungry”. Es decir: sed locos, arriesgaros, pero manteneros siempre hambrientos. Sólo si nos mantenemos con hambre, sólo si nos apasiona lo que hacemos, sólo entonces podremos transformar las cosas y hacer realidad la utopía.

¿Que todo vaya bien siempre?

¡No! Es imposible que en un mundo finito haya un crecimiento infinito, es imposible, la ecuación no cuadra, por mucha eficiencia tecnológica que exista. Nos esperan muchas crisis más en el futuro, a nivel de competitividad, de recursos, de sostenibilidad, etc… Hay que asumirlo, y ponerse a trabajar cada día. Los que pretenden una vida de felicidad permanente viven en un sinsentido.

Source:
www.noticias.com

07/02/08

Dealing with Recessionary Times

Tom Peters is constantly asked for "strategies/'secrets' for surviving the recession." If you want to know what's going through his head, read the list below:

You work longer.
You work harder.
You may well work for less; and, if so, you adapt to the untoward circumstances with a smile—even if it kills you inside.
You volunteer to do more.
You always bring a good attitude to work.
You fake it if your good attitude flags.
You literally practice your "game face" in the mirror in the morning, and in the loo mid-morning.
You shrug off shit that flows downhill in your direction—buy a shovel or a "pre-worn" raincoat on eBay.
You get there earlier.
You leave later.
You forget about "the good old days"—nostalgia is for wimps.
You buck yourself up with the thought that "this too shall pass"—but then remind yourself that it might not pass anytime soon, so you re-dedicate yourself to making the absolute best of what you have now.
You eschew all forms of personal excess.
You simplify.
You sweat the details as you never have before.
You sweat the details as you never have before.
You sweat the details as you never have before.
You raise to the sky the standards of excellence by which you evaluate your own performance.
You thank others by the truckload if good things happen—and take the heat yourself if bad things happen.
You behave kindly, but you don't sugarcoat or hide the truth—humans are startlingly resilient.
You treat small successes as if they were Superbowl victories—and celebrate and commend accordingly.
You shrug off the losses (ignoring what's going on inside your tummy), and get back on the horse and try again.
You avoid negative people to the extent you can—pollution kills.
You eventually read the gloom-sprayers the riot act.
You learn new tricks of your trade.
You network like a demon.
You help others with their issues.
You give new meaning to the word "thoughtful."
You redouble, re-triple your efforts to "walk in your customer's shoes." (Especially if the shoes smell.)
You mind your manners—and accept others' lack of manners in the face of their strains.
You are kind to all mankind.
You leave the blame game at the office door.
You become a paragon of accountability.
And then you pray...

Maintaining moral during change.

We know that organizational change of any kind, even good change, generates anxiety among those affected. In today’s economic climate, change often means contracting budgets, doing away with events or celebrations that cost money, and perhaps even laying off staff. So as managers, how do we deal with the incredible amount of anxiety we feel, while managing the anxiety of our staff and trying to keep morale high? Those are important questions consistent with business planning philosophy. The trick is, we are dealing with human emotions, which are not outcome or goal driven, they are process driven and systems driven.

People need several things when they are uncertain: they need a structure that helps them feel safe; they need to know their feelings are being heard and responded to; they need to feel invested in order to feel more comfortable with the uncertainty; and they need recognition of the power they do have when confronting situations they may not be able to control. These are all difficult things to establish in the midst of change, chaos or rapidly evolving situations. But they can be taken in order, building a process to manage anxiety and even tap into creative solutions, from the ground up.

Safe structures: whatever forum you establish to allow employees to air concerns or feelings needs to have clear parameters. The fact is, as their manager, you control the fate of your employees - their job, their salary, their reward structure. So the burden is on you to establish not only the structure (anonymous email chat room, small group meetings, brown bag lunches, etc.) but parameters that make participation in the structure safe.

• What are the rules of the safe zone? Your job is to clarify the rules - which means understanding first within yourself what is on the table and what is off the table. For example, criticizing management may be something you want off the table. Expressing concern about feeling overworked or undervalued may be on the table. You don’t want to suggest discussion topics - the idea is to have those be self-generated by the participants, but you do want to clarify what makes a topic appropriate vs. inappropriate.
  


• How do I know it is safe? You also must be crystal clear about what makes this a safe forum to air feelings. Maybe that means that you (the manager) are not there and that what is said in the room stays in the room. Maybe that means that the group can generate anonymous suggestions to management. Maybe that means you are part of the group but indemnify the participants from any “consequences” related to their speaking up about what concerns them. Again, the burden on you in this situation is to be clear first within yourself about what you will and won’t indemnify - for example expressing frustration at the loss of certain benefits may be indemnified, but one person continually stirring up or trying to organize people around an issue may be something you need to handle with that person directly, which is a consequence of speaking up. You have to be clear about what you can tolerate by way of feedback.

Feeling Heard: It is vital for employees to feel that their concerns have been heard, and carry some weight - that management cares about how they feel. This can be quite delicate when dealing with downsizing or budget cuts, because how they feel may not change the outcome. So management must be crystal clear about what is open to change and what is not, when soliciting employee’s thoughts and opinions. You want to establish a forum or mechanism whereby employees can express their thoughts and opinions, feel that they have been heard, and taken into consideration. You want to be careful not to set expectations that their concerns will necessarily affect the outcome. Some mechanisms are highlighted below, along with the issues for each mechanism:

• Anonymous methods (e-chat rooms; suggestion boxes; etc.) - the obvious benefit to these mechanisms is their anonymity. Thus employees can express their most heartfelt opinions while knowing that they are safe from any recriminations. The downsides to these mechanisms include lack of response to the feedback (because the person giving the feedback is not known) and that the employee won’t “own” their own feedback, which tends to give rise to the least acceptable comments. We recommend anonymous methods only when the change is gradual or long term and there is the possibility of responding to the feedback (like a suggestion box).
  


• Structured discussion groups - the greatest benefit to this mechanism is the human interaction. Members of the group can express their feelings and get support from other members of the group. They may even benefit from a forum to air feelings where management is present, but only in a listening mode. These kinds of groups must have very clear ground rules - (no personalized comments; feelings must relate to work; etc.).
  It is important to look carefully at how participants are selected - for example, there can be benefits and risks of assembling cross-departmental groups vs. hierarchical groups vs. departmental groups vs. random groups (also formal vs. informal groups). The factors you want to consider are: corporate culture (outspoken vs. covert); how hierarchical the organization is (deep organizations may mean too many levels of management present to make it a safe zone); inter-departmental relationships (it can be best to put departments together that do not otherwise have cause to interact); and organizational values (make sure whatever mechanism you use is consistent with your organizational values).
  

Feeling invested and powerful: if any aspect of the change situation is open to suggestions, or to being influenced by the employees, this can provide you with an invaluable opportunity to ensure that the employees feel invested in the outcome. Consider the situation and look at any aspects that are open to group consensus or individual suggestions. For example, if it is a budget cut that has to happen, you could say each department is responsible for cutting x% and let each department work out their own cuts. Or, if you must look at suspending or discontinuing certain programs, you could ask employees to help create criteria for evaluating which programs to discontinue. The only situation you cannot use a democratic process for is layoffs - department heads must be involved, but not because it is a democratic process, because that is their responsibility, and it is not one anyone else wants to share.

• First and foremost, management must identify, and communicate clearly what is open to suggestion and what is not.
  


• Management must also be clear about its role - it is the final decision maker. So to the extent you are soliciting input or suggestions, it is important to identify the limits of what is being offered, and to identify who will make the final decision.
  


• The more you can be transparent about your decision making process, the better. If you solicit feedback or input from staff, and then do not tell them why or how you chose one suggestion over another, it could set up a competitive, distrustful environment. It is important to be clear first within yourself what factors you will consider when trying to make a decision, in order to decide what you can be transparent about. Some of the factors you consider may not be appropriate to be shared - such as individual staff development concerns, or the greater expense associated with longer tenured employees.

There is no absolute formula for how to maintain employee morale during times of change. However, there are several key factors to keep in mind as a manger:

• Organizational values - make sure that your actions throughout the time of change are consistent with organizational values. If that is not possible, be prepared to explain why it was not possible to uphold those values, and be prepared to revisit the values in a democratic process after the change.
  


• Organizational culture - the more competitive your culture is, the more you want to focus on transparency and communication throughout the change process. Competitiveness breeds anxiety as does change, so the combined factors could make the atmosphere untenable without the anxiety reducers of communication and transparency. Organizational culture is the result of many different factors:
  - Communication - it is important to notice the degree to which your organization relies heavily on unspoken communication (i.e. “it is their job to figure out how to do what I want done”) vs. spoken communication (i.e. “this is what I want done, and here are my suggestions for how your might do it, but let me know what you decide is the best method.”). Understanding where your organization sits on the communication continuum will give you cues as to your organizational culture.
  - Reward systems - consider how performance is recognized and rewarded in your culture. Is it very outcomes driven - meaning results are rewarded regardless of how they were obtained, or is it process focused - meaning the learning and development process is as important as the outcomes produced?
  - Accountability - is accountability shared or held individually (both positive and negative)? Do individuals get recognition or consequences based on their own actions, or based on the actions of a group? If accountability is held by groups rather than individuals, then anxiety will be shared and supported, and therefore lower than if it is held by individuals.
  - Recognition - beyond the formal reward systems, how are employees recognized and for what kind of behavior? Do you have a monthly general birthday party? Is there an employee of the month? Do you meet with employees outside of performance management time to let them know you recognize their good performance?

A final note to managers - know yourself. Take a good look at yourself and your systems of managing your own morale in order to understand how to deal with change and maintain employee morale. Does your board hold you to task, or do they support you? Do you have family, friends and colleagues to talk to about your own anxiety? How do you process anxiety - do you shut down, do you talk about it, do you jump into action? All of these behaviors will give you clues for how to handle anxiety in your employees. Your own behavior as a manager sets the standard for corporate culture. Employees will often exhibit similar behavior characteristics for how they manage stress as their CEO. So do what you can (and use those same methods for your employees) to keep your own anxiety low and stay constructive.

(by http://pennconsulting.wordpress.com/)