SAP

Sustainability By Design in SoftwareThis paper elicits the key principles required for a software development organization to build sustainability as a value proposition in their operations, products and services and proposes implementation strategies that can enable them to design software that are sustainable

Sathiyam, Visvapriya4/5/2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table of contents.....................................................................................................................................................2

Motivation...............................................................................................................................................................3

The Key Drivers and Principles of Sustainable Organizations...................................................................................4

Participatory SYSTEM.......................................................................................................................................4

MULTI-dimensional Thinking............................................................................................................................4

Adaptability Potential.......................................................................................................................................5

Sustainability By Design in software – implementation strategies...........................................................................6

Embracing Participatory Design along with User Centric Design......................................................................6

Ethnographic Research FOR SUSTAINABLE Interaction Design Patterns..........................................................8

Ecosystem POWERED Knowledge Repository FOR SHARED AND CONTINUOUS LEARNING.............................9

Background Information........................................................................................................................................11

Hannover’s Principles – A case on sustainable product design..................................................................11

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN: A case on sustainability of SOCIAL enterprise...................................................12

Appropriate Technology: A case on sustainability of villages....................................................................12

Sustainability Governance Indicators – A case on sustainability of nations...............................................13

Education for Sustainable Development – A case on sustainability of the Planet......................................13

References.............................................................................................................................................................15

Further Reading.....................................................................................................................................................15

Online Resources...................................................................................................................................................15

MOTIVATION

Two incidents intrigued me to question how a company can build innovative products that not only meet the needs of its customers, but also is built in a socially responsible and sustainable way. The first incident happened during one of my customer visits last year. I learnt that the administrative department in the customer’s organization suddenly had a surge in expenses since they were buying ink cartridges every forty five days after installing their new ERP software. This was because the Business Reports generated by the software had unnecessary background colors on its table’s cells consuming more ink than a white-background report when printed. The customer soon learnt to work around the problem by smartly (and patiently) exporting reports to MS Excel and printing them from there with no background colors.

The second incident was when I was at the Industrial Design Center (IDC), Indian Institute of Technology in November 2009 participating in the country’s first Design centric conference on sustainability. For a change, the presentations were not centered on showcasing products, technology and business innovation that reduced carbon footprint. Instead, we discussed about even more fundamental challenges that make or break sustainable living a reality such as culture, identity, education, thinking and creativity in every-day life.

I came to understand that, while it is important to build special software for our customers to measure, monitor and act on various sustainability indices, it is equally important that we design all our products the right way with an in-depth understanding of the environment they are run in. This level of understanding, I believe, will help us

innovate and design products that not only deliver instant value to customers, but also would enable us to create great products that run in a sustainable way. First as humans and then as designers,

this should be our primary goal for building great products and services.

Though there is a lot of sustainability related research work around the areas of Product Design in Industrial Ecology, so far not much has been done in the Software Design. Green IT focus is on energy usage monitoring, data center efficiency, virtualization, and software architecture. These help in improving energy consumption through optimized hardware, telecommunication and performance. Green IT does not focus on the design aspects of the software that also contribute to running an efficient IT landscape. The issue of ensuring software sustainability ‘by design’ is not even given a thought in most products and organizations (sparing a few initiatives such as Google’s search page design). Designing software sustainably will ensure that the IT landscape runs efficiently not just on energy but also on other organization assets such as paper, time and man power. This paper is a result of an attempt in finding out how sustainability can be built-in ‘by design’ in the software we create,

1. First by identifying the key drivers and principles that an organization should adopt to bring sustainable thinking into their culture and practice

2. And second by finding strategies that aids the design process in creating sustainable design

The main difference between sustainable design methods and conventional design is incorporating the entire environment of the project's stakeholders on the design team, essentially, and that calls for new ways to explore connections and for more people and perspectives to be taken into account.- Sustainability Design Standards

THE KEY DRIVERS AND PRINCIPLES OF SUSTAINABLE ORGANIZATIONS

An in-depth study of the key principles that made sustainability a reality was done based on methods used by public, private and social organizations that were diverse in size and function. The study included case studies written by or written on social organizations that built industrial products, research organizations that studied sustainability, non-profit organizations that made a social impact through their sustainability initiatives and institutions that educated sustainable development. This gave a deeper understanding of implementation and management strategies used by these organizations to sustain effectively. These patterns clearly showed three main characteristics an organization should have to think sustainable - Participatory outlook, Diverse Thinking and Adaptability Potential. Here below is a summary of what these different characteristics mean and the principles that aids in building these characteristics.

PARTICIPATORY SYSTEM

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

1. Build on co-operation, co-ownership and trusteeship

Co-operation as a virtue thereby has graduated from being a text book subject in schools to being one of the driving forces that make highly successful organizations. National Governance, Corporate Performance, Natural selection all have relied in the principle of co-operation in sustaining themselves. The nature of cooperation is such that it brings along benefits that a competitive strategy could not bring. The expertise of the participators brings in diversified perspectives and ideas to the table. This helps in taking well informed decisions that are more adept in adapting to changes in the long-term. While participatory systems take time to establish initially, overtime as the group matures, it makes more quicker and effective decisions. Co-ownership (having a stake in the costs and benefits of the activity) and trusteeship ensures that conflicts are resolved within the group organically without causing any disruption to the activity.

*A brilliant example of a successful Participatory system in Indian social sector is the case study of Lijat Papad , a women-only enterprise that is now studied in B-schools across the globe for their strategies on building a co-operative enterprise

MULTI-DIMENSIONAL THINKING

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

2. Develop critical and systemic thinking

3. Learn from multi-disciplinary knowledge base

4. Tap on knowledge gathered from local cultural and traditional practices

5. See the impact of a change at micro, macro and global levels within and across ecosystems

6. Watch and echo nature as a model, mentor and measure

Multi-dimensional thinking can open up new ways of looking at a problem. It helps seeing new patterns and inter-disciplinary links between existing concepts that could not be identified by looking at them individually. It also

helps smartly reinventing and adapting solutions that worked in a different context at a different time. All of these finally help in making well-informed decisions and in developing solutions that are sustainable in the long term and adaptable to unforeseen changes.

*An interesting case study is how the Sinhalese people in Srilankan rural villages who had moderate knowledge in technology used a systemic integrated thinking approach in bringing together their local wisdom and scientific enquiry to run and sustain their villages. Their philosophy that integrates cultural, social, economic, religious and ecological dimensions is called the Sarvodaya Model and has helped build 15,000 villages in Srilanka.

ADAPTABILITY POTENTIAL

GUIDING PRINCIPLES

7. Embrace unpredictability as a way of understanding

8. Continuously learn and share new information and insights

9. Monitor and analyze scope for improvement and potential risks

The tendency to see things as results of short-term events undermines our ability to see things on a grander scale. Cave men needed to react to events quickly for survival. However, the biggest threats we face nowadays are rarely sudden events, but slow, gradual processes, such as environmental changes.

- The Fifth Discipline, Peter Senge

As an individual, the ability to think far beyond the current scope is a skill that has to be nurtured consciously. This requires values such as openness, flexibility, fearlessness, immunity to failures, striving attitude and commitment to continuous learning. As an organization, adaptability includes dealing with unanticipated changes and handling crisis and risky situations. In order to sustain such changes, people should be able to adapt quickly to newer roles and responsibilities. Adaptive systems fundamentally rely on active learning from research and development and from the feedback they receive by monitoring and measuring the system to make interventions in the system that is non-disruptive and sustainable.

*The complexity of building adaptability into a system can be understood well from how Governments adapt to global challenges, security risks, dwindling resources and increasing environmental problems by measuring and monitoring their Sustainability Governance Indicators. While the process of developing such a metrics and implementing it is a humongous task, it gives hope that if such an initiative can be accomplished at a national level, it could be achieved at an organizational level.

A list of specific papers based on which these principles were derived is listed under the section ‘Background Information’. The Hannover’s Principles are of specific importance that influenced the formulation of these principles to fit the context of software design organizations.

SUSTAINABILITY BY DESIGN IN SOFTWARE – IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES

This section details out the implementation strategies to build the right design process and empower designers to build sustainability into software by-design. The term by-design means that sustainability is not a byproduct of the design process, but built consciously with awareness and sensitivity to ecological resources and the demands of the ecosystem. These strategies are based on the principles and characteristics detailed in the previous section.

EMBRACING PARTICIPATORY DESIGN ALONG WITH USER CENTRIC DESIGN

Participatory design (PD) is a design methodology that attempts to actively involve all stakeholders (designers, developers, partners, customers and key decision makers) in the design process. The process is different from User-Centric Design in the extent of engagement of the stakeholders in the process. In UCD customers are consulted on regular intervals and their feedback is ‘considered’ for the next iteration of design. They are not involved in decision making. In PD, customers have an important stake and are involved in the design and decision making steps co-operatively with other stakeholders. The other difference is the size of the user group. In UCD a small group of users are consulted during the design process at the time of initial research, whereas in PD the user groups are usually huge. This is because PD has been predominantly used in community-based-initiatives such as Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), running social enterprises where bigger groups of users participate in the system. The purist version of PD may not be practical for all types of design setup (due to reasons discussed below). However embracing the spirit and values of PD and using it in appropriate places can add value to the design process that UCD alone cannot deliver. Here below are key issues of executing PD strictly and solutions that can overcome them.

1. “Participatory processes are usually slow”

As a participatory group mandates consensus from all stake holders who typically have diverse opinions, the process of decision making could become extremely arduous. This is especially true during the initial stages of the design process until the stakeholders learn to adopt a common set of values, roles and responsibilities are clarified, expectations are matched and the goals become clear overtime. However, it has also been found that over time as the group spends more time together it becomes more effective. A few ways of avoiding delayed decisions is to

a. Ensure the roles and responsibilities are clarified within the group very early

b. Clearly communicate the goals and ensure they are understood by the group

c. Train the group on the principles of a participatory process that mandates a common set of values (trusteeship, co-ownership, mutual respect and sharing).

d. Understand that inculcating a common set of group values is always hard to achieve within a short span and prepare for handling conflict resolution constructively.

2. “A fairly huge group of users is hard to mobilize”

Though this is essential for PD in practice so far, this is not required in all design setups.

a. Reach out to as many users as possible at different stages of software development to get diverse perspectives. This can be done using the UCD approach by consulting with different end users at different stages of the design and development process. The methods include contextual enquiry, concept validation, usability testing and benchmarking.

b. Build a closed-loop communication channel to get continuous feedback from a small fixed set of users regularly. This can follow the PD approach where end users sit with other stake holders and make combined decisions. Discussing the iterated design with the same set of users ensures that design evolves in the direction the user wants. Ensure the group is diverse in knowledge, experience and expertise. This along with long term commitment and clear focus ensures that most complex and unanticipated parameters are resolved during the early iterations of design, reducing potential risk in future.

3. “Ensuring that the group’s commitment and spirit of involvement lasts is a challenge”

Some researchers in PD disagree on this statement saying that PD actually ensures long term commitment if the roles, responsibilities and values of the participants are made clear and the costs and benefits are fairly shared. The group also gets more involved when the communication barriers are low. To ensure active participation of the group

a. Provide a common platform and the necessary tools (communication and collaboration) for the end users, designers and other stake holders to get together supported by a with a streamlined process (usually there are several legal and operational overhead in getting all these people together, that should be eliminated)

b. Share all relevant material (prototypes, design sketches) at regular intervals. Users feel more involved when they can give feedback on working concepts than on finished products or power point presentations.

c. Keep the communication channel open and make all decisions transparent.

4. “It is not always practical to have all stake holders agree on every single decision”

While PD mandates mutually agreed decision in any kind of setup, it may not be possible in organizations where the user groups are huge and distributed over the globe. Software organizations that build products have such a kind of setup. A service organization that serves one or a small bunch of customers has greater chances of implementing PD in its truest sense.

a. Keep in mind, the fundamental motive of participatory design is to understand the context (ecosystem) of the user end-to-end in making informed decisions. While being democratic is important, it is not a mandate to provide decision making power in the hands of the end users. Users are interested in getting value and not in getting control.

5. “PD requires the designers and end users to be co-located. This might be hard to achieve in a distributed organization”

a. Decentralize the design and development process, offering maximum possible control to local setup. Offer minimal and required central intervention. Decentralization as a strategy has always been successful in sustainability management across all sizes of organizations.

b. Distributed PD is an evolving concept (since 2009) that tries to address exactly this problem. Currently there is not much easily accessible information on this topic. However it is worth keeping track of its progress and see if some of its principles can be reused.

ETHNOGRAPHIC RESEARCH FOR SUSTAINABLE INTERACTION DESIGN PATTERNS

In December, Ford announced its new Fusion hybrid, which was rated an impressive 41 mpg city and 36 mpg highway. But then something interesting happened. In one of the earliest reviews, Pulitzer Prize-winning auto critic Dan Neil reported getting 52 mpg. Other journalists reported similar numbers, averaging at least nine miles more per gallon. A review today at Auto Insane reported an astounding 59 mpg. The reason? The innovative new instrument panel that's collaboration between Smart Design and IDEO. The Ford SmartGauge uses better interface design to influence driver behavior by showing when and how they're getting the best energy efficiency. Thanks to good design, the Fusion is actually training its driver to increase performance.

IDEO conducted ethnography research on hybrid owners, and introduced the idea of "coaching" drivers by showing them when the car was performing at its peak. Smart Design ran with the idea, creating what Formosa calls a strategy for a "car and driver ecosystem" with constant feedback from the car to the driver that focused on four concepts: Inform Enlighten, Engage, and Empower. When the car is at its most efficient, leaves and vines begin to unfurl out from the right side of the panel, named the Eco-Guide. They can also track their efficiency over time with data crunched into various graphs and charts. "We really played into people's instincts," knowing that better efficiency actually made drivers happier, says Formosa. "People are naturally motivated by reward."

http://www.fastcompany.com/blog/alissa-walker/designerati/fords-smartgauge-helps-hybrid-drivers-increase-mileage-better-instrum

There are a couple of interesting inferences one can draw from this story. Revisiting and analyzing existing solutions (through ethnographic research or other research mechanisms) from a different perspective can produce beneficial outcomes. The moment we think of sustainability in design, newer insights and ideas flow that were not known before.

Sustainable IT in today’s context encompasses security, privacy, accessibility and environmental impact (Green IT). Green IT focus is on energy usage monitoring, data center efficiency, virtualization, and software architecture. These help in improving energy consumption through optimized hardware, telecommunication and performance. Green IT does not focus on the design aspects of the software that also contribute to running an efficient IT landscape. For example, let us take the case of paper and find if the design of the software is good enough to optimize on paper consumptions. The immediate questions to answer could be:

1. Does the software allow me to archive documents and print them only when required? (less paper)

2. Does the software provide me with easily accessible collaboration tools to review documents with my peer online? (less printouts)

3. Does the software provide me a way to electronically send documents? (less printouts)

4. Does the software provide me options to print documents with no images and backgrounds? (less ink)

5. Does my software provide me options to compress archived documents? (less storage space)

6. Do I get immediate feedback on the energy and paper consumption of the document I am about to print?

7. Do I get to know if I the document I am about to print has been printed recently (in which case I might rummage through my desk rather than print it again)?

8. Can the software smartly choose the right options such as layout, orientation and scale? (less paper)

9. Can the software intelligently identify the closest available printer? (less time, less network crawl)

10. How many clicks does it take to print a document? (less power, less human intervention)

The more we think, more we find opportunities where the design can be optimized. If we can consider all the aspects of design such as human intervention (manual vs. automation, response time), interaction and navigation models, visual design and information structuring from the perspective of sustainability we could come up with newer ideas and design patterns that could be prove to be more efficient. This coupled with detailed study of the end user’s ecosystem (software, hardware, people, space, processes) through elaborate ethnographic or design research can give us insightful information for making our software design more sustainably. Lastly, learning from other disciplines in industrial ecology and design and from nature’s models can bring reusability of ideas that have worked successfully in the past.

ECOSYSTEM POWERED KNOWLEDGE REPOSITORY FOR SHARED AND CONTINUOUS LEARNING

Sustainability Education has gained an increasing amount of attention especially in this decade and it is not surprising that 2005-2014 has been declared by UN as the Decade of Sustainable Development. Under this umbrella initiative is Ecosystem Based Sustainable Development (ESD, initiated by UNESCO) that aims at brining sustainability thinking into the mindset of every person in the planet be it a child, student, teacher, researcher or a practitioner. On one side it is important that we make use of these initiatives, universities, online communities and training institutes to educate ourselves. On the other side it is important to contribute and share the knowledge gained back with the society.

Ecosystem powered Knowledge repository aims at building a shared platform where all the members in the system (designers, developers, customers, partners, decision makers, policy makers) come together in sharing information, insights and best practices. There are three significant impact of building such a shared repository.

1. When all the stake holders in the design process are on the same page in terms of information, it becomes easier to collaborate together and make well informed decisions (participatory decisions).

2. It provides every member in the group with richer context and diverse perspectives which helps in continuous learning (diverse learning),

3. The group is sufficiently equipped to quickly adapt solutions to changing contexts and needs (adaptability potential).

The current problem in most organizations today is that this level of cross-boundary sharing and collaboration is missing. Both customers and developers/designers have slices of the information pie and as a result their expectations and understanding of design solutions do not match. From the perspective of education, the first step is to bridge this knowledge gap by adopting shared and continuous learning. The knowledge repository can be an online collaborative portal where every member is able to produce and consume information (similar to a WIKI, but a little more structured in terms of content). The content could be

1. Case studies on design that had a positive or negative impact in the customer’s ecosystem. These case studies, unlike success stories that fit popular media, should be more detailed in eliciting the exact methods and ideas that created an impact.

2. Up-to-date information on new and continuing initiatives in research, design, process and technology that is relevant to sustainability, from any member or sub-group.

3. Beta releases, and intermediate design artifacts of ongoing projects, so that non-members of a project can provide their valuable insights

4. Key learning from Design evaluations

5. Best Practices of sustainable proposals in customer’s IT landscape. These are mostly solutions that do not have software viability yet and are worth investigating more time in finding improvements.

6. New developments in technology and software that the customer ecosystem can leverage. For e.g. with a printer company has come up with a smarter print mechanism that is energy efficient, make it known to customers.

7. Cross-disciplinary Information, ideas, stories and design solutions from other fields (industrial design, industrial ecology, biomimicry, sustainability management and governance, etc…)

8. Information Links and updates from outside communities that do not have a direct impact on software design, but are relevant from a sustainability perspective. These would include organizations like X, Y, Z

9. Information Links of blogs, articles, newsletters, websites, research papers, upcoming conferences, book releases and reviews that are of relevance to sustainability and software design.

10. And finally a space to share personal thoughts with the community or within sub-groups

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This section highlights a list of methods created or adopted by organizations for enabling sustainability, based on which the principles and implementation strategies in this paper are proposed. The examples highlighted here have been selected such that they offer diversified views on sustainability in varied fields and sizes of ecosystems from sustainability of micro enterprises to sustaining villages and nations.

Method Main Impact Field Size

Hannover’s Principle Environmental Product Sustainability Micro

Co-operative Organizations Social, Economic Enterprise / Business Sustainability Micro

Appropriate Technology Social, Economic Village Sustainability Macro

Sustainability Governance Indicators Social, Economic National Sustainability Macro

Education for Sustainable Development Social, Environmental Ecosystem Sustainability Global

HANNOVER’S PRINCIPLES – A CASE ON SUSTAINABLE PRODUCT DESIGN

William McDonough and Michael Braungart presented work on principles of ethics and ecology to be followed in the design process, during the World Fair, EXPO 2000 in Hannover in 1992. These principles soon became a directive for designers and design firms towards building sustainable products and started appearing in books and university curriculum as references. The principles encouraged designers to engage in a collaborative and cross-disciplinary approach that brought diverse set of ideas and realistic sustainable models. In addition, designers also started bringing in the wisdom of the local, decentralizing design process and enriching the design solutions models that worked globally as well locally. It also made designers develop a long-term impact analysis and vision for the products they built. The design philosophy cradle-to-cradle instead of the conventional cradle-to-grave approach soon became ingrained among these designers. Many manufacturing organizations such as Ford Motors and Nike have successfully transformed their design and manufacturing process based on this approach. These people are also the authors of the two widely acclaimed books on sustainability Cradle-to-Cradle: Remaking the way we make things and Hannover’s Principles of Design: Design for Sustainability.

The nine principles

1. Insist on human rights and sustainability.

2. Recognize the interaction of design with the environment.

3. Consider the social and spiritual aspects of buildings and designed objects.

4. Be responsible for the effect of design decisions.

5. Ensure that objects have long-term value.

6. Eliminate waste and consider the entire life-cycle of designed objects.

7. Make use of "natural energy flows" such as solar power and its derivatives.

8. Be humble, and use nature as a model for design.

9. Share knowledge, strive for continuous improvement, and encourage open communication among stakeholders.

Link to Original Paper

PARTICIPATORY DESIGN: A CASE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF SOCIAL ENTERPRISE

The World Food Programme (WFP) and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) in collaboration with a local NGO called Indian Grammen Services focused on studying successful models of businesses in the rural areas of India that enhanced the livelihood of the poor significantly. The aim was to identify the processes, organizational structures and the support systems that made such interventions scale and sustainable and at the same time replicable. There were five detailed case studies and each one of them evinced a strong need for a participatory and democratic process within a group of highly committed individuals who shared the ideals of collectivity, equality and mutual respect. One of the case studies needs a mention here for their pertinent business strategies and the magnitude of social impact they had on their community.

Case study of Lijat Papad: A women enterprise that provided livelihood options by making Papads*

Lijat Papad is now one of the business models studied in Harvard University to understand the strategies of a participatory model of running business. Here is a story of a group of seven household women who got together and made papads to earn their livelihoods. Despite initial losses, within six months these women soon made a profit that helped them buy 5 grams of gold (if you bring the subject of ‘wise’ investments to any Indian woman, the first thing they would say is ‘gold’). Soon they understood the potential of the business and started recruiting women from neighborhoods. Now after four decades, the enterprise is run by 42,000 women, whose core values lie in co-ownership and trusteeship. Secondly, they quickly leveraged on decentralizing their production units to their homes, engaging a larger community of women in neighboring villages and states. Thirdly, these wondrous women adapted to quickly taking up newer roles of managing and leading, helping the organization to scale up to the demands of the market. Women who had little formal education started handling bank transactions of 3000 million rupees daily. This is a strong case study of co-innovation and sustainability becoming byproducts of an economic model by creating the right organizational structures and aligning the needs and values of the people.

Link to Original Paper

* A papad is an Indian version of a crispy, think cracker

APPROPRIATE TECHNOLOGY: A CASE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF VILLAGES

Sarvodaya is Srilanka’s largest people organization dedicated to rural development and empowerment of Sinhalese. Sarvodaya’s model emphasizes on integrated thinking that encompasses economic, social, cultural and religious dimensions. They strongly believe in local wisdom of the Sinhalese and discourage strategies that have worked in other lands, other countries. This is a reflection of the Gandhian concept they follow called ‘appropriate technology’ (also later was adopted by several scientists and architects like Buckminster Fuller). Appropriate Technology differentiates itself from advanced modern technology by working with people involved whereas the latter works with systems at a generic level. They chose technology that worked for people rather than choosing technology for which people worked. Today they are a network of over 15,000 villages with a volunteer population of 200,000 who run educational institutes, micro-credit organizations and welfare organizations using technology

and local expertise to run their enterprises. Their understanding of technology is rather practical, contextual to their local needs and adaptive than being generalized, borrowed elsewhere or even proved to be impractical sometimes.

Link to Original Source

SUSTAINABILITY GOVERNANCE INDICATORS – A CASE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF NATIONS

In the light of changing economy, new global challenges, security risks, dwindling resources and increasing environmental problems, National Governance plays a key role in ensuring sustainability of a country. Governments implement a wide spectrum of strategies and reformations to cope up with these challenges. However, there existed no way of evaluating if these strategies contributed to a successful reformation or not. In 2009, the 30 OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) countries that includes USA, Canada, many EU nations, UK, Korea, Japan and Australia came together and formulated detailed Sustainability Governance Indicators (SGI) to find evidence-based factors that contributed to successful transformations. SGI measures two key aspects of national governance. One is the Status index that measures the extent of need for reform on a timely basis and the other is the Management index that analyses the capacity of a government to make the right kind of reforms. The results indicated a high score for the Nordic countries and New Zealand while countries like Italy, Mexico and Greece ranked poorly in the performance of their governance. On analyzing deeper, two trends seem to be differentiating the top scoring nations from the low scoring ones

a. Active Involvement of civil servants, political parties and citizens in decision making

b. Capacity of the nation to institutional learning and self-monitoring

This shows that the driving factors of building sustainable nations or sustainable software design are the same - participatory processes, education (diversified thinking) and measurement (for adaptability).

Link to Original Paper

EDUCATION FOR SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT – A CASE ON SUSTAINABILITY OF THE PLANET

The UN declared 2005-2014 as the Decade of Education for Sustainable Developed (DESD). One of the initiatives under this umbrella project was to evaluate the current practices in various international communities and nations on Education for Sustainable Development (ESD). ESD supports five types of learning:

1. Learning to know.

2. Learning to Do.

3. Learning to Be.

4. Learning to live together.

5. Learning to transform oneself and the society.

ESD tries to achieve this by providing various educational programs for different target groups

1. Early education for children

2. Higher professional university education in sustainability development

3. Teacher’s education on sustainability

4. Research and Education in SD.

TA review was done on the success of ESD. The results showed that ESD has been a value-driven approach that has empowered people to participate in society and understand its complexity from social, economic, ecological and cultural dimensions. While different nations had different definitions and implementations of ESD they all reflected a common understanding of the need of such a programme that made it successful and effective.

1. creation of awareness

2. Building Local and global vision

3. Inculcating responsibility

4. Learning to change

5. Becoming participative

6. Believing in lifelong learning

Link to Original Paper

REFERENCES

1. Towards a New Literacy of Cooperation in Business, Institute of the Future, 2004

2. World Business Council for Sustainable Development, Vision 2050

3. Global Footprint Network

4. The Living Planet Report on Biodiversity

5. Principles of Ecosystem Approach , Convention on Biological Diversity

6. Ecosystem Based Management , Marine Sustainability

7. Scenarios for Sustainability

FURTHER READING

1. Hannover’s Principles of Design: Design for Sustainability

2. Cradle-to-Cradle

3. Biomimicry: Innovation Inspired By Nature, Janine M. Benyus(1997)

4. PERMACULTURE: A Designer’s Manual

5. Do Good Design: How Designers can Change the World, David Berman(2009)

6. The Fifth Discipline: The Art and Practice of the Learning Organization, Senge, Peter M. (1990)

7. Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation

8. Richard Dawkins, Selfish Genes

9. Participatory IT Design: Designing for Business and Workplace Realities

10. Recommended Readings from Society of Organizational Learning (Peter Senge)

ONLINE RESOURCES

In keeping with the third principle of SSD as written in this paper, I present to you a sample of the infinite resources (institutions, papers, case studies and online networks) available in the field of Sustainability and Management for readers who are interested in expanding their understanding of the subject

SUSTAINABILITY INITIATIVES (ORGANIZATIONS, NETWORKS, INDIVIDUALS)

1. World Food Programme

2. Marine Sustainability: Ecosystem Based Management

3. Sarvodaya : Rural Sustainability

4. McDononough’s Home Page

5. Sustainability Governance Indicators

6. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (30 nations)

7. Social Design Notes

SUSTAINABILITY IN EDUCATION

1. International Green computing conference

2. UNESCO

3. Society for Organization Learning (Peter Senge)

4. Design Accord

5. Minneapolis College of Art And Design, Sustainable Design Online Certificate

6. Center for Environmental Education in India

7. Decade of Education for Sustainable Development (DESD) , a UN initiative

8. Social Design Site

9. Natural Step, Sustainability Education in collaboration with Universities all over the world